Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The patch itself looks fine to me, and is a good idea. I recently saw a
> confused user on another fs where successful mount messages were
> followed by failure mount messages with no indication of which fs had
> the trouble...
>
> There probably are more spots in extX which could use this treatment...
> should we maybe just be using ext3_warning in more places, which
> automatically prints the sb, function name, etc?
Most of the messages in ext[234]_fill_super() should really be ext3_error(),
but because the superblock isn't properly set up calling ext3_error() is a
way to oops the kernel.
Probably the cleanest solution is to split ext3_error() into a helper function
ext3_error_msg() that can be called from ext3_fill_super(), and the rest
of the code that now lives in ext3_handle_error().
Alternately, a flag could be set in the superblock ("EXT3_SETUP_DONE")
once everything is initialized, and then ext3_error() calls
ext3_handle_error(), and otherwise just prints the message and the
mount will fail by itself. This has the benefit that we can use
ext3_error() everywhere there is a fatal problem, but the drawback that
it may become confusing due to the added "errors=*" semantics that will
not behave as they do in other functions.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
--
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
