On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:23:18PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 05:42:53PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > From: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > In this commit (921f266b) a sanity check is added in map_blocks to make
> > sure 'retval == map->m_len'. But we need to define a macro to enable
> > it. This commit uses a WARN_ON to do the same thing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> You and Dmitry were the ones who using originally these these checks
> to fix the bugs here;
Yes, I use this check to fix bug.
> if we think the code is clean enough that we
> don't need the debugging information with the inode number, length,
> etc., then sure, we could use the unconditionally defined WARN_ON().
>
> If we wanted to be really paranoid and give ourselves the maximal
> amount of debugging information, we could of course do something like
> this:
>
> if (retval != map->m_len) {
> ext4_warning(inode->i_sb, "ES len assertation failed for inode: %lu retval %d != map->m_len %d\n", inode->i_ino, retval,
> map->m_len);
> WARN_ON(1);
> }
I think this is better.
>
> This way, we get the stack dump, the file system device, and all of
> the debugging information. The tradeoff is we're bloating the code
> size a bit.
>
> The question is really how confident are we that we've found all of
> the potential bugs here. If we think that there's a chance we might
> trip this check in the future, sometimes it's good to print as much
> information as possible, especially if it's hard to create a
> reproduction on demand.
>
> What do you think?
In my sand box, after fixed the bug, I never see this warning again.
But I do believe we'd better leave it here to give us an opportunity to
fix some potential bugs.
Thanks,
- Zheng
--
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
