On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 05:07:48PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Refactor the callers of verifiers to print the instruction address of a
> failing check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
.....
> @@ -2455,13 +2461,16 @@ xfs_agf_read_verify(
> struct xfs_buf *bp)
> {
> struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> + xfs_failaddr_t fa;
>
> if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb) &&
> !xfs_buf_verify_cksum(bp, XFS_AGF_CRC_OFF))
> - xfs_verifier_error(bp, -EFSBADCRC);
> - else if (XFS_TEST_ERROR(xfs_agf_verify(mp, bp), mp,
> - XFS_ERRTAG_ALLOC_READ_AGF))
> - xfs_verifier_error(bp, -EFSCORRUPTED);
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp, -EFSBADCRC, __this_address);
> + else {
> + fa = xfs_agf_verify(mp, bp);
> + if (XFS_TEST_ERROR(fa, mp, XFS_ERRTAG_ALLOC_READ_AGF))
> + xfs_verifier_error(bp, -EFSCORRUPTED, fa);
> + }
> }
That's much nicer than the last iteration :)
.....
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> index c0a98c4..7e58a99 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_error.c
> @@ -348,15 +348,18 @@ xfs_corruption_error(
> void
> xfs_verifier_error(
> struct xfs_buf *bp,
> - int error)
> + int error,
> + xfs_failaddr_t failaddr)
> {
> struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> + xfs_failaddr_t fa;
>
> - __xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error, __return_address);
> + fa = failaddr ? failaddr : __return_address;
> + __xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error, failaddr);
I'm a little unsure of this. Why pass failaddr to
__xfs_buf_ioerror() rather than fa?
Otherwise, everything looks good.
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
