is_valid_re...ournal_block(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

πŸ’– is_valid_recovery_journal_block(9) πŸ’–

okay so bestie, welcome to the Kernel API Manual β€” this one lives in the kernel galaxy and it's all about one very specific vibe check: is this header actually valid for this journal? let's get into it 🫢


✨ NAME ✨

is_valid_recovery_journal_block β€” literally just determines whether the given header describes a valid block for the given journal. that's it. that's the whole job. πŸ’…


🌸 SYNOPSIS 🌸

bool is_valid_recovery_journal_block (const struct recovery_journal
*journal , const struct recovery_block_header *header , bool old_ok );

πŸŽ€ ARGUMENTS πŸŽ€

  • journal β€” the journal we're using, bestie. the one we're checking against. πŸ‘‘
  • header β€” the unpacked block header we're checking. yes, unpacked β€” it's already been unpacked, don't come at me. πŸ¦‹
  • old_ok β€” whether an old format header is valid. like, do we accept the vintage look or not. 🌈

πŸ’œ DESCRIPTION πŸ’œ

so here's the tea β˜• β€” a block is not valid if it's unformatted, or if it's older than the last successful recovery or reformat. that's the whole rule. two ways to fail, no cap. πŸ’€


⭐ RETURN ⭐

True if the header is valid. πŸŽ‰ that's it, that's the return value, go off king.


πŸ¦‹ SEE ALSO πŸ¦‹

all my faves from the Kernel file ./drivers/md/dm-vdo/repair.c:


ok that's the whole page bestie, go validate some headers responsibly πŸ§šβ€β™€οΈπŸ’–

sign-off szn: this little icon comes to you from ./drivers/md/dm-vdo and it's dated October 2026 β€” and the header up top is is_valid_re...ournal_block(9) in case u were wondering what we've been screaming about this whole time 😭🫢 slay, bye! πŸ’…βœ¨

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from