[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: dquot recovery needs verifiers

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: dquot recovery needs verifiers
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 13:20:06 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140801143023.GD26455@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1406768509-32556-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1406768509-32556-5-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140801143023.GD26455@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 07:30:23AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:01:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > dquot recovery should add verifiers to the dquot buffers that it
> > recovers changes into. Unfortunately, it doesn't attached the
> > verifiers to the buffers in a consistent manner. For example,
> > xlog_recover_dquot_pass2() reads dquot buffers without a verifier
> > and then writes it without ever having attached a verifier to the
> > buffer.
> > 
> > Further, dquot buffer recovery may write a dquot buffer that has not
> > been modified, or indeed, shoul dbe written because quotas are not
> > enabled and hence changes to the buffer were not replayed. In this
> > case, we again write buffers without verifiers attached because that
> > doesn't happen until after the buffer changes have been replayed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> The xlog_recover_do_reg_buffer look fine to me, but what's the rationale
> for removing the xfs_dqcheck call?

It's done by the verifier.


Dave Chinner

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