On 10/09/2007, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Duane Griffin wrote: > > 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. :) Easy to do :) > > 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. Good point. Perhaps best to just back that part out. > 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... I struggled with the wording, too. I originally went with "Invalid dx limit/count", but wasn't terribly happy with it. "Corrupt" is more accurate and informative. Perhaps the warning should also explicitly recommend running fsck: "Corrupt root limit in dir inode %ld, running e2fsck is recommended\n" Cheers, Duane. -- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan - 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
