Andreas,
>
> On May 29, 2018, at 5:45 AM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Wang Shilong <wshilong@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> only call ext4_error() if new corrupted bit set,
>> this could save us repeated error messages and
>> unecessary super block write.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wshilong@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> index 554bceb..9f88991 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> @@ -766,21 +766,24 @@ void __ext4_grp_locked_error(const char *function,
>>
>> -void __ext4_mark_group_bitmap_corrupted(struct super_block *sb,
>> - ext4_group_t group,
>> - unsigned int flags)
>> +int __ext4_mark_group_bitmap_corrupted(struct super_block *sb,
>> + ext4_group_t group,
>> + unsigned int flags)
>> {
>> struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
>> struct ext4_group_info *grp = ext4_get_group_info(sb, group);
>> struct ext4_group_desc *gdp = ext4_get_group_desc(sb, group, NULL);
>> int ret;
>> + int set = 0;
>>
>> if (flags & EXT4_GROUP_INFO_BBITMAP_CORRUPT) {
>> ret = ext4_test_and_set_bit(EXT4_GROUP_INFO_BBITMAP_CORRUPT_BIT,
>> &grp->bb_state);
>> - if (!ret)
>> + if (!ret) {
>> percpu_counter_sub(&sbi->s_freeclusters_counter,
>> grp->bb_free);
>> + set = 1;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> if (flags & EXT4_GROUP_INFO_IBITMAP_CORRUPT) {
>> @@ -792,8 +795,11 @@ void __ext4_mark_group_bitmap_corrupted(struct super_block *sb,
>> count = ext4_free_inodes_count(sb, gdp);
>> percpu_counter_sub(&sbi->s_freeinodes_counter,
>> count);
>> + set = 1;
>> }
>> }
>> +
>> + return set;
>
> Instead of adding a separate "set" variable, why not initialize "ret = 0"
> and then return "!ret"? It might be better to rename "ret" to something
> more useful like "was_set" (which could be done in the original 1/5 patch).
>
This doesn’t work, because it is possible that we don’t set any bit for the flags passed in.
Or we could change it to:
If (flags & (EXT4_GROUP_INFO_IBITMAP_CORRUPT | EXT4_GROUP_INFO_BBITMAP_CORRUPT) && !ret)
return 1;
else
return 0;
Instead of something like this, introduced another bool value looks more readable?
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
