2023-02-27 13:07 GMT+09:00, Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx <Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Namjae,
>
>> >
>> >> > + if (hint_clu == sbi->num_clusters) {
>> >> > hint_clu = EXFAT_FIRST_CLUSTER;
>> >> > p_chain->flags = ALLOC_FAT_CHAIN;
>> >> > }
>> > This is normal case, so let exfat rewind to the first cluster.
>> >
>> >> > + /* check cluster validation */
>> >> > + if (!is_valid_cluster(sbi, hint_clu)) {
>> >> > + exfat_err(sb, "hint_cluster is invalid (%u)", hint_clu);
>> >> > + ret = -EIO;
>> >> There is no problem with allocation when invalid hint clu.
>> >> It is right to handle it as before instead returning -EIO.
>> > We think all other case are real error case, so, error print and
>> > return EIO.
>> Why ?
>>
>> > May I confirm is there any normal case in here?
>> Could you please explain more ? I can't understand what you are saying.
>> >
>
> `hint_clu` has the following cases.
>
> 1. Create a new cluster chain: `hint_clu == EXFAT_EOF_CLUSTER`
> 2. Append a new cluster to a cluster chain: `hint_clu = last_clu + 1`
> 2.1 ` hint_clu == sbi-> num_clusters`
> 2.2 `EXFAT_FIRST_CLUTER <= hint_clu < sbi-> num_clusters`
>
> This commit splits case 2 to 2.1 and 2.2, and handles case 2.1 before
> calling is_valid_cluster().
> So is_valid_cluster() is always true, even removing the check of
> is_valid_cluster() is fine.
>
> But considering that this check can find bugs in future code updates, we
> keep this check and return -EIO.
> If not returned EIO and continue, bug may not be revealed.
As I said on previous mail, We print warning message for this before
rewinding. There is absolutely no reason to return an error...
>
