On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 06:04:57PM +0200, Fanael Linithien wrote:
> On 2015-05-27 17:27, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> >I wonder if something like:
> >
> > /* Look for V5 feature flags we don't know about */
> > if (XFS_SB_VERSION_NUM(sb) >= XFS_SB_VERSION_5 &&
> > (xfs_sb_has_ro_compat_feature(sb, XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_UNKNOWN) ||
> > xfs_sb_has_incompat_feature(sb, XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_UNKNOWN) ||
> > xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(sb, XFS_SB_FEAT_COMPAT_UNKNOWN))) {
> > printf("unknown feature flags 0x%x/0x%x/0x%x\n",
> > sb->sb_features_ro_compat &
> > XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_UNKNOWN,
> > sb->sb_features_incompat & XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_UNKNOWN,
> > sb->sb_features_compat & XFS_SB_FEAT_COMPAT_UNKNOWN);
> > ...
> >
> >would suffice, given that the user will need to read code to unerstand the
> >hex
> >values, anyway.
<shrug> I guess repair could do that. I'd broken things out separately
(key word: broken ;)) to avoid complaining about whichever fields aren't
broken, but I suppose it doesn't really matter.
> >
> >Hm, and as Fanael also pointed out, "compat" features ... should be ok,
> >right,
> >and can be removed from the exclusions?
>
> I'm not entirely sure silently ignoring unknown compat features in
> xfs_repair is a good idea. Consider this ext2 example: xattr support
> is a compat flag. It's okay to rw mount a FS with xattrs on some
> ancient (or non-Linux) kernel without xattr support â everything
> will be fine, even though there's no way to access them â but if the
> fsck tool doesn't understand them, it wouldn't be able to diagnose
> xattr corruption.
>
> I'd either warn the user about unknown compat features, telling them
> they're on their own if something in the FS is still broken; or barf
> outright.
I prefer any repair tool be forthcoming about not knowing what something is.
--D
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
|