From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1 linux-next] udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:12:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170120101225.GG14115@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170118183935.32503-1-fabf@skynet.be>
On Wed 18-01-17 19:39:35, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> udf_fill_super() used udf_parse_options() to flag UDF_FLAG_BLOCKSIZE_SET
> when blocksize was specified otherwise used 512 bytes
> (bdev_logical_block_size) and 2048 bytes (UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE)
> IOW both 1024 and 4096 specifications were required or resulted in
>
> "mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/loop1"
>
> This patch loops through different block values but also updates
> udf_load_vrs() to return -EINVAL instead of 0 when udf_check_vsd()
> fails (and uopt->novrs = 0).
> The later being the reason for the RFC; we have that case when mounting
> a 4kb blocksize against other values but maybe VRS is not mandatory
> there ?
>
> Tested with 512, 1024, 2048 and 4096 blocksize
>
> Reported-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>
Thanks for the patch. It looks good to me. I'll test it a bit and pick it
up.
Honza
> ---
> fs/udf/super.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/udf/super.c b/fs/udf/super.c
> index 967ad87..078a144 100644
> --- a/fs/udf/super.c
> +++ b/fs/udf/super.c
> @@ -1957,7 +1957,7 @@ static int udf_load_vrs(struct super_block *sb, struct udf_options *uopt,
> if (!nsr_off) {
> if (!silent)
> udf_warn(sb, "No VRS found\n");
> - return 0;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
> if (nsr_off == -1)
> udf_debug("Failed to read sector at offset %d. "
> @@ -2161,15 +2161,19 @@ static int udf_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *options, int silent)
> ret = udf_load_vrs(sb, &uopt, silent, &fileset);
> } else {
> uopt.blocksize = bdev_logical_block_size(sb->s_bdev);
> - ret = udf_load_vrs(sb, &uopt, silent, &fileset);
> - if (ret == -EAGAIN && uopt.blocksize != UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE) {
> - if (!silent)
> - pr_notice("Rescanning with blocksize %d\n",
> - UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE);
> - brelse(sbi->s_lvid_bh);
> - sbi->s_lvid_bh = NULL;
> - uopt.blocksize = UDF_DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE;
> + while (uopt.blocksize <= 4096) {
> ret = udf_load_vrs(sb, &uopt, silent, &fileset);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + if (!silent) {
> + pr_notice("Scanning with blocksize %d failed\n",
> + uopt.blocksize);
> + }
> + brelse(sbi->s_lvid_bh);
> + sbi->s_lvid_bh = NULL;
> + } else
> + break;
> +
> + uopt.blocksize <<= 1;
> }
> }
> if (ret < 0) {
> --
> 2.9.3
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-20 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-18 18:39 [RFC 1/1 linux-next] udf: allow implicit blocksize specification during mount Fabian Frederick
2017-01-20 10:12 ` Jan Kara [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170120101225.GG14115@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=fabf@skynet.be \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).