| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: ASSERT in xlog_find_verify_log_record during xfs/098 |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:45:38 -0800 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <56D5E7DA.3080900@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <56D5E7DA.3080900@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 01:04:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Should that assert even be there? Looks like it's gracefully > handled, I don't see offhand that anything should have caught > this corruption earlier, and we don't really want to bug on disk > corruption. Am I missing something? We used to have a couple of these, especially in log recovery - whoever wrote this code probably though trapping on these corruptions for a debug kernel makes sense. I'm fine with dropping them, and a little audit for more of them might not hurt. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: block allocations for the refcount btree, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC PATCH] semaphore: fix uninitialized list_head vs list_force_poison, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | ASSERT in xlog_find_verify_log_record during xfs/098, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | [RFC PATCH] semaphore: fix uninitialized list_head vs list_force_poison, Dan Williams |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |