Re: [PATCH 08/12] ext4: Combine ext4_handle_error() and save_error_info()

From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] ext4: Combine ext4_handle_error() and save_error_info()
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:24:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201216102400.GD21258@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201216101147.GB21258@quack2.suse.cz>

On Wed 16-12-20 11:11:47, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 14-12-20 11:23:04, harshad shirwadkar wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 3:38 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > save_error_info() is always called together with ext4_handle_error().
> > > Combine them into a single call and move unconditional bits out of
> > > save_error_info() into ext4_handle_error().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/ext4/super.c | 31 +++++++++++++++----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > index 2d7dc0908cdd..73a09b73fc11 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > @@ -592,9 +592,6 @@ static void __save_error_info(struct super_block *sb, int error,
> > >  {
> > >         struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
> > >
> > > -       EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mount_state |= EXT4_ERROR_FS;
> > > -       if (bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev))
> > > -               return;
> > >         /* We default to EFSCORRUPTED error... */
> > >         if (error == 0)
> > >                 error = EFSCORRUPTED;
> 
> ...
> 
> > > @@ -944,13 +943,13 @@ __acquires(bitlock)
> > >         if (test_opt(sb, ERRORS_CONT)) {
> > >                 if (test_opt(sb, WARN_ON_ERROR))
> > >                         WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > > +               EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mount_state |= EXT4_ERROR_FS;
> > Since you moved the bdev_read_only() check from __save_error_info to
> > ext4_handle_error(), should we add that check here?
> 
> Thanks for the review! Now that I'm looking at it, you're probably right it
> would be safer.  That being said I don't think it really matters:
> a) Because I don't think this function can get called on read-only bdev
> b) Because functions processing the work item will find out the sb is
>    read-only and won't do anything. But it's really wasted work.
> 
> I can see Ted didn't merge this patch yet. So I'll resend the series from
> this patch because after fixing this it required a bit of rebasing. Also I
> have two more additional fixes in the series based on Andreas' feedback.
> 
> Thanks again for looking into the series!

OK, fixed up patches sent:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20201216101844.22917-1-jack@suse.cz

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR