From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752029AbdCBUvj (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:51:39 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:58840 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076AbdCBUva (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:51:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:55:18 -0800 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chao@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: correct cp_ver for compatibility to old image Message-ID: <20170302185518.GA1030@jaegeuk.local> References: <20170302032233.89189-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170302032233.89189-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote: > There is no CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG tagged in checkpoint pack, calculate > cp_version as old format. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu > --- > fs/f2fs/node.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c > index 6c027b6833f4..0d46404ca769 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c > @@ -2507,7 +2507,9 @@ static int __get_nat_bitmaps(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) > f2fs_put_page(page, 1); > } > > - cp_ver |= (cur_cp_crc(ckpt) << 32); > + if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG)) > + cp_ver |= (cur_cp_crc(ckpt) << 32); Well, we always write nat_bits with crc. So if it's different, something is wrong and we need to drop it. CP-CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG is used for roll-forward recovery, which is a different context. > + > if (cpu_to_le64(cp_ver) != *(__le64 *)nm_i->nat_bits) { > disable_nat_bits(sbi, true); > return 0; > -- > 2.8.2.295.g3f1c1d0