Hi, On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 09:34 -0500, Bob Peterson wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > | Hi, > | > | If we are going to do this, then perhaps we should consider reading > | in > | the rindex on mount? That way it will always be uptodate, and we can > | refuse to mount if the rindex is damaged which is probably cleaner > | than > | doing it after the event. > | > | The only concern is the time taken to mount large filesystems. Having > | said that the rindex should be contiguous on disk in most cases, so > | it > | should be a fairly fast operation. Worth considering, anyway I think, > | > | Steve. > > Hi, > > That's not a bad idea, and we should consider it for a future enhancement. > However, I think these checks still need to be here because there are > other ways the rindex can get out of date and need to be re-read after > mount. For example, if there was another intermediate gfs2_grow done on a > different node. > > BTW, I assume you saw my other patch from yesterday regarding gfs2_unlink, > right? > > Regards, > > Bob Peterson > Red Hat File Systems
Both patches now pushed to the -nmw tree, but I'd like to see a more comprehensive fix for this in due course, Steve.
