On 04/10, heyunlei wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaeg...@kernel.org] > >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:01 PM > >To: heyunlei > >Cc: Yuchao (T); linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wangbintian; > >Zhangdianfang (Euler) > >Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev][PATCH] fsck.f2fs: recover nat bits feature default > >by fsck > > > >On 04/09, Yunlei He wrote: > >> Now, nat bits feature is enabled by default, we will > >> meet with the following scenarios: > >> > >> i. disabled, without CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG, if fsck find some > >> fs errors, fix or write new checkpoint will then enable it. > >> ii. enabled, with CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG, in the case of sudden > >> power off, bitmap will get lost but CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG > >> still exist, fsck will recover bitmap in f2fs_do_mount. > >> iii. enabled, with CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG, both of bitmap and > >> CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG will get lost if not enough space for > >> nat bits or nat bits check failed during mounting. > >> SBI_NEED_FSCK is set, fsck will recover flag and bitmap > >> before next mount. > >> > >> SBI_NEED_FSCK means fs is corrupted, is not suitable for > >> nat bits disabled. This patch try to recover nat bits all > >> by fsck, no need set SBI_NEED_FSCK flag in kernel. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yunlei He <heyun...@huawei.com> > >> --- > >> fsck/mount.c | 15 ++++++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fsck/mount.c b/fsck/mount.c > >> index e5574c5..2361ee0 100644 > >> --- a/fsck/mount.c > >> +++ b/fsck/mount.c > >> @@ -2389,7 +2389,7 @@ int f2fs_do_mount(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) > >> } > >> > >> /* Check nat_bits */ > >> - if (c.func != DUMP && is_set_ckpt_flags(cp, CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG)) { > >> + if (c.func != DUMP) { > >> u_int32_t nat_bits_bytes, nat_bits_blocks; > >> __le64 *kaddr; > >> u_int32_t blk; > >> @@ -2406,10 +2406,15 @@ int f2fs_do_mount(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) > >> kaddr = malloc(PAGE_SIZE); > >> ret = dev_read_block(kaddr, blk); > >> ASSERT(ret >= 0); > >> - if (*kaddr != get_cp_crc(cp)) > >> - write_nat_bits(sbi, sb, cp, sbi->cur_cp); > >> - else > >> - MSG(0, "Info: Found valid nat_bits in checkpoint\n"); > >> + if(is_set_ckpt_flags(cp, CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG)) { > >> + if (*kaddr != get_cp_crc(cp)) > >> + write_nat_bits(sbi, sb, cp, sbi->cur_cp); > >> + else > >> + MSG(0, "Info: Found valid nat_bits in > >> checkpoint\n"); > >> + } else if (c.func == FSCK){ > >> + ASSERT_MSG("Need to recover nat_bits."); > >> + c.fix_on = 1; > > > >What if kernel doesn't support this? > > Fix or write checkpoint now will enable nat bits by default if cp space is > enough, > So maybe it will not affect kernel not supporting nat bits?
I don't think we really need this, since it mixes up whole thing. > > > > >> + } > >> free(kaddr); > >> } > >> return 0; > >> -- > >> 1.9.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
