On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:19:55AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Repair functions will not return EAGAIN -- if they were not able to
> obtain resources, they should return EDEADLOCK (like the rest of online
> fsck) to signal that we need to grab all the resources and try again.
> Hence we don't need to deal with this case except as a debugging
> assertion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c
> index 92c661b98892..f6c4cb013346 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,6 @@ xrep_attempt(
> sc->flags |= XREP_ALREADY_FIXED;
> return -EAGAIN;
> case -EDEADLOCK:
> - case -EAGAIN:
> /* Tell the caller to try again having grabbed all the locks. */
> if (!(sc->flags & XCHK_TRY_HARDER)) {
> sc->flags |= XCHK_TRY_HARDER;
> @@ -73,6 +72,10 @@ xrep_attempt(
> * so report back to userspace.
> */
> return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> + case -EAGAIN:
> + /* Repair functions should return EDEADLOCK, not EAGAIN. */
> + ASSERT(0);
> + fallthrough;
> default:
> return error;
> }
I'd do this rather than ASSERT(0) and fall through:
default:
ASSERT(error != -EAGAIN);
return error;
}
but that's just personal preference. Change it if you want, either
way works so:
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
