On Tue 27-02-18 20:40:05, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 February 2018 19:01:14 Jan Kara wrote:
> > Yeah, it makes sense to keep LVID in open state if it was like that when we
> > first saw it. Attached patch should do what you ask for. I'll just probably
> > silence the warning until fsck.udf actually works...
>
> > @@ -1988,7 +1988,13 @@ static void udf_open_lvid(struct super_block *sb)
> > lvidiu->impIdent.identSuffix[1] = UDF_OS_ID_LINUX;
> > ktime_get_real_ts(&ts);
> > udf_time_to_disk_stamp(&lvid->recordingDateAndTime, ts);
> > - lvid->integrityType = cpu_to_le32(LVID_INTEGRITY_TYPE_OPEN);
> > + if (le32_to_cpu(lvid->integrityType) == LVID_INTEGRITY_TYPE_CLOSE) {
> > + lvid->integrityType = cpu_to_le32(LVID_INTEGRITY_TYPE_OPEN);
> > + } else {
> > + UDF_SET_FLAG(sb, UDF_FLAG_NEEDCHECK);
> > + udf_warn(sb, "volume need not be in consistent state. Running "
> > + "fsck is recommended.\n");
>
> Maybe just?
>
> udf_warn(sb, "volume need not be in consistent state.\n");
Well, until there's a tool to fix the warning, I don't want to emit any as
it has higher chances of confusing users than doing any good to them :)
After all so far we've got away with just overwriting the integrity type
and nobody complained ;).
> And instead of UDF_FLAG_NEEDCHECK probably UDF_FLAG_INCONSISTENT?
Yeah, that's a better name.
> But patch looks good.
Thanks.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
