[Ocfs2-tools-devel] [PATCH 2/3] Do not use ECC for fsck.ocfs2

[Sunil Mushran]

On 06/27/2011 07:51 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Sunil Mushran<sunil.mushran at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 07:45 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues<rgoldwyn at suse.de>
>>> ---
>>>   fsck.ocfs2/fsck.c |    3 ++-
>>>   1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fsck.ocfs2/fsck.c b/fsck.ocfs2/fsck.c
>>> index e032dfd..ea072c6 100644
>>> --- a/fsck.ocfs2/fsck.c
>>> +++ b/fsck.ocfs2/fsck.c
>>> @@ -631,7 +631,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>         char *filename;
>>>         int64_t blkno, blksize;
>>>         o2fsck_state *ost =&_ost;
>>> -       int c, open_flags = OCFS2_FLAG_RW |
>>> OCFS2_FLAG_STRICT_COMPAT_CHECK;
>>> +       int c, open_flags = OCFS2_FLAG_RW | OCFS2_FLAG_STRICT_COMPAT_CHECK
>>> |
>>> +               OCFS2_FLAG_NO_ECC_CHECKS;
>>>         int sb_num = 0;
>>>         int fsck_mask = FSCK_OK;
>>>         int slot_recover_err = 0;
>> So this patch series only fixes superblock. What about inodes and other
>> metadata blocks. The good news is that we will recompute ecc for inodes
>> that get fixed. But ones that have bad checksums, will not get fixed.
>>
> Yes, I am too busy right now (I am diversifying into other avenues). I
> have put it in my TODO list and will get back to it once I have more
> time (or urgently if the customer faces this problem ;))
>

Sure. I didn't mean to push the full task on you. Just wanted to point
out that that would be needed. AFAICT.