[PATCH] xfs_repair: further improvement on secondary superblock search method

[Eric Sandeen]

> On May 30, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Dave Chinner <david at fromorbit.com> 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...

Seems like the best fix is to not print that twice in the first place?

-Eric

>     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...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david at fromorbit.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs at oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>