Re: [PATCH] xfs: clarify units in the failed metadata io message

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/8/18 1:40 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> If a metadata IO error happens, we report the location of the failed IO
> request in units of daddrs.  However, the printk message misleads people
> into thinking that the units are fs blocks, so fix the reported units.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> index 1981ef7..582c64a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -1196,7 +1196,7 @@ xfs_buf_ioerror_alert(
>  	const char		*func)
>  {
>  	xfs_alert(bp->b_target->bt_mount,
> -"metadata I/O error: block 0x%llx (\"%s\") error %d numblks %d",
> +"metadata I/O error: daddr 0x%llx (\"%s\") error %d numblks %d",
>  		(uint64_t)XFS_BUF_ADDR(bp), func, -bp->b_error, bp->b_length);
Ok, so I might have nodded in approval on IRC a little early; if "block"
was misleading, I think "numblks" is too.  So if you change one to
daddr, I wonder if the other should be changed as well to, um ...


"metadata I/O error: daddr 0x%llx (\"%s\") error %d count %d"

?  That's a bit vague but at least not misleadingly containing a form of
"blocks" - whatchathink?  Maybe "len?"  Even "sectors" is a bit overloaded
now.  :(

-Eric
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux