On 31.01.19 г. 16:20 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:03:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> On 2019/1/30 下午10:59, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> On 30.01.19 г. 16:57 ч., David Sterba wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 01:09:16PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>> Just add one extra line to show when the corruption is detected.
>>>>> Currently only read time detection is possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 ++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>>>>> index 794d5bb7fe33..426e9f450f70 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>>>>> @@ -658,6 +658,8 @@ static int btree_readpage_end_io_hook(struct
>>>>> btrfs_io_bio *io_bio,
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!ret)
>>>>> set_extent_buffer_uptodate(eb);
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + btrfs_err(fs_info, "read time tree block corrupted detected");
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure the 'read time' is clear enoug, my suggestion is to use
>>>> 'post-read' (and pre-write analogicaly). What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> How about "error during tree block reading" or "error reading treeblock"?
>>
>> Nikolay's suggestion looks more straightforward to me.
>>
>> +1 for his idea.
>>
>> The 'post-read' still could confuse end-user IMHO.
>
> The idea is to distinguish if the error was because the block can't be
> read or because the data it contains are wrong.
In this case we can say "Read corrupted block"
>
