xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 25/30 V2] libxfs: fix root inode handling inconsistencies

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/30 V2] libxfs: fix root inode handling inconsistencies
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:05:38 -0800
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131104232242.GS6188@dastard>
References: <1383107481-28937-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1383107481-28937-26-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131030102318.GA31519@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131030215940.GH6188@dastard> <20131031041343.GK6188@dastard> <20131031150024.GP22359@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131031220438.GP4446@dastard> <20131101130316.GB14898@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131104232242.GS6188@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:22:42AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > xfs_initialize_perag_data does the following:
> > 
> >  - read in AGI/AGF.  This is something we lazily do whenever we need it
> >    anyway, so no one should rely on it.
> >  - update the in-core superblock global counters.  Seems like the old
> >    xfs_check relies on this and still needs an equivalent if we care
> >    enough.  No one else seems to care.
> 
> So you are suggesting that I move that initialisation to the
> xfs_check code rather than just doing it in the mount code? Or
> something else?

That seems to be the sanest option if it works out.  Otherwise we'd need
to keep a flag to let libxfs do it.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>