On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48:03PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > Just looking at this old patch, and noticed this is still the same > in newer versions. > > This should probably be either an ext4_error(), since it affects > data correctness, even though it isn't an on-disk error, or at least > an ext4_msg() so that it also prints the block device and uses the > standard ext4 error format. Yeah, we should convert it to use ext4_msg(); using ext4_error() doesn't seem appropriate since that will mark the file system as corrupted, which isn't the case if this isn't an on-disk error. Maybe a WARN_ON(1) is appropriate so that we get a stack trace and kerneloops.org tracking? > In the first patch (ext4-claim-err.diff) the access to the > superblock for ext4_msg() is a bit of a hack, but I think it isn't > terrible. Agreed, this isn't bad. > The second patch (ext4-error-cleanup.diff, to be used instead of the > first one) is a bit more thorough cleanup that changes the callers > to pass a struct super_block, and also removes some single-use stack > variables in related code. I haven't looked closely at this one yet, I'm not entirely convinced the cleanups are worth all of the changes, but I'm willing to be convinced. - Ted -- 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
