Duane Griffin wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:48:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> (resend, this one got lost? Got an acked-by from Andreas >> last go-round) > > Sorry I missed this first time around. I came up with a very similar > fix recently, following a gentoo bug report. However there are a few > more asserts later that you aren't currently handling. Below is an > incremental patch on top of yours that converts them too. Ah, good point... I focused a bit too much on the single problem at hand didn't I. :) > Note that one > of them is in an if (0) block and maybe should be left alone -- what do > you think? If it's just there for debug, maybe leaving an assert is ok, to get a dump & system state etc. If it is converted, a printk would probably be good so you know you're falling back, otherwise that extra checking is a bit pointless if it's silent. > I tested all the changed code paths, except the if (0) one, using a > utility that appropriately corrupts ext3 images. > The source code is > attached to the gentoo bug report here: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183207 > > Signed-off-by: Duane Griffin <duaneg@xxxxxxxxx> Looks good, thanks for not ignoring the other asserts. ;-) I wonder if we should fix up all the new error condition printk's a bit to be more descriptive of the problem at hand; for example, the one I sent should maybe say: + ext3_warning(dir->i_sb, __FUNCTION__, + "Corrupt root limit in dir inode %ld\n", dir->i_ino); I wanted to leave the word "corrupt" in there, or at least something to clue in the user that maybe fsck is in order... Thanks, -Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
