On Mon 14-12-20 11:23:04, harshad shirwadkar wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 3:38 AM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > save_error_info() is always called together with ext4_handle_error().
> > Combine them into a single call and move unconditional bits out of
> > save_error_info() into ext4_handle_error().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/super.c | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 2d7dc0908cdd..73a09b73fc11 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -592,9 +592,6 @@ static void __save_error_info(struct super_block *sb, int error,
> > {
> > struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
> >
> > - EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mount_state |= EXT4_ERROR_FS;
> > - if (bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev))
> > - return;
> > /* We default to EFSCORRUPTED error... */
> > if (error == 0)
> > error = EFSCORRUPTED;
...
> > @@ -944,13 +943,13 @@ __acquires(bitlock)
> > if (test_opt(sb, ERRORS_CONT)) {
> > if (test_opt(sb, WARN_ON_ERROR))
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mount_state |= EXT4_ERROR_FS;
> Since you moved the bdev_read_only() check from __save_error_info to
> ext4_handle_error(), should we add that check here?
Thanks for the review! Now that I'm looking at it, you're probably right it
would be safer. That being said I don't think it really matters:
a) Because I don't think this function can get called on read-only bdev
b) Because functions processing the work item will find out the sb is
read-only and won't do anything. But it's really wasted work.
I can see Ted didn't merge this patch yet. So I'll resend the series from
this patch because after fixing this it required a bit of rebasing. Also I
have two more additional fixes in the series based on Andreas' feedback.
Thanks again for looking into the series!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
