On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 03:37:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:38:16PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > This patch is a further optimization of secondary sb search, in order to
> > handle non-default geometries. Once again, use a similar method to find
> > fs geometry as that of xfs_mkfs. Refactor verify_sb(), creating new
> > sub-function that checks sanity of agblocks and agcount:
> > verify_sb_blocksize().
> >
> > If verify_sb_blocksize verifies sane paramters, use found values for the sb
> > search. Otherwise, try search with default values. If these faster methods
> > both fail, fall back to original brute force slower search.
> >
> > NOTE: patch series "xfs_repair: improved secondary sb search" must be
> > applied before applying this patch.
> > (http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2016-05/msg00269.html)
>
> Either this or one of the above patches is causing xfs/030 on
> my xfstests runs to fail with extra output:
>
> xfs/030 4s ... - output mismatch (see
> /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad)
> --- tests/xfs/030.out 2016-04-06 11:30:45.348477421 +1000
> +++ /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad
> 2016-05-30 13:06:29.955682633 +1000
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> bad primary superblock - bad magic number !!!
>
> attempting to find secondary superblock...
> +....
> +attempting to find secondary superblock...
> found candidate secondary superblock...
> verified secondary superblock...
> ...
> (Run 'diff -u tests/xfs/030.out
> /home/dave/src/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/xfs/030.out.bad' to see the entire
> diff)
>
> Bill, can you please work up a filter or equivalent for xfstests
> so that this extra output doesn't cause unnecessary failures?
> Something like simply filtering all the "attempting to find
> secondary superblock..." and "...." lines from the output would work
> just fine - all we really care about is that a secondary sb is found
> and verified, not how many steps it takes to find it...
Yep. Will do.
Thanks-
Bill
|