On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 03:54:16PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 01/30/2014 03:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 1/30/14, 2:26 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c
> >>>> index 511cce9..b575317 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_sb.c
> >>>> @@ -617,6 +617,8 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> >>>> /* Only fail bad secondaries on a known V5 filesystem */
> >>>> if (bp->b_bn != XFS_SB_DADDR &&
> >>>> xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb)) {
> >>>> + XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> >>>> + mp, bp->b_addr);
> >>>> error = EFSCORRUPTED;
> >>>> goto out_error;
> >>>> }
> >>>> @@ -625,12 +627,8 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> >>>> error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, true);
> >>>>
> >>>> out_error:
> >>>> - if (error) {
> >>>> - if (error != EWRONGFS)
> >>>> - XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR(__func__, XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
> >>>> - mp, bp->b_addr);
> >>>> + if (error)
> >>>> xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, error);
> >>>> - }
> >>>> }
> >> ... but why not leave the corruption output here in out_error, change
> >> the check to (error == EFSCORRUPTED) and remove the now duplicate
> >> corruption message in xfs_mount_validate_sb() (or replace it with a
> >> warn/notice message)? This would catch the other EFSCORRUPTED returns in
> >> a consistent manner, including another potential duplicate in the write
> >> verifier. I guess we'd lose a little specificity between the crc failure
> >> and sb validation, but we could add a warn/notice for the former too.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >
> > Well, I went back and forth on this. It's probably philosophical. ;)
> >
> > Should we emit the corruption error at the point of corruption detection,
> > or at a higher level? I guess my concern was that while *this* caller
> > might catch the return & yell, if another caller got added it might not.
> >
> > Putting it at the point of detection seemed foolproof in that regard.
> >
>
> Yeah, that makes sense too. If we were consistent, that model would
> suggest the write verifier corruption message could go and we'd embed
> corruption errors along with the other associated EFSCORRUPTED returns
> (at least where the resulting message is appropriate) in
> xfs_mount_validate_sb().
>
> Either way seems reasonable to me. I guess if all the remaining
> situations are in fact real corruption situations, the point of
> detection approach is probably more resilient. It would still be nice to
> make the verifiers consistent in that though. ;)
And the conclusion to this discussion is ...?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
