On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:40 PM Harshad Shirwadkar
<harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty, since the errors
> indicate valid failures below Ext4. In all of the other instances of
> ext4_ext_dirty calls, the error return value is handled in some
> way. This patch makes those remaining couple of places to handle
> ext4_ext_dirty errors as well. In the longer run, we probably should
> make sure that errors from other mark_dirty routines are handled as
> well.
>
> Ran gce-xfstests smoke tests and verified that there were no
> regressions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ext4/extents.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index f2b577b315a0..f62f55a16fe3 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -3244,8 +3244,7 @@ static int ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
>
> fix_extent_len:
> ex->ee_len = orig_ex.ee_len;
> - ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + path->p_depth);
> - return err;
> + return ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + path->p_depth);
> }
I realized that this is not correct. That's because fix_extent_len is
an error path and this change would make ext4_split_extent_at() return
success if ext4_ext_dirty succeeds in this path. I think instead I
should be adding a comment here explaining why we are not handling
ext4_ext_dirty(). Sorry for that.
- Harshad
>
> /*
> @@ -3503,7 +3502,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
> }
> if (allocated) {
> /* Mark the block containing both extents as dirty */
> - ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + depth);
> + err = ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + depth);
>
> /* Update path to point to the right extent */
> path[depth].p_ext = abut_ex;
> --
> 2.26.1.301.g55bc3eb7cb9-goog
>
