On 2018/9/20 7:38, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 09/19, Junling Zheng wrote:
>> From: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
>>
>> If sb checksum is not enabled, and cp pack is valid due to no
>> crc inconsistence, let's try to recover cp_payload based on
>> cp_pack_start_sum in cp pack.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  fsck/f2fs.h  |  5 +++++
>>  fsck/mount.c | 10 +++++++---
>>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fsck/f2fs.h b/fsck/f2fs.h
>> index d216444..0d0d5e2 100644
>> --- a/fsck/f2fs.h
>> +++ b/fsck/f2fs.h
>> @@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ static inline unsigned long __bitmap_size(struct 
>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int flag)
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline block_t __cp_payload(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>> +{
>> +    return le32_to_cpu(F2FS_RAW_SUPER(sbi)->cp_payload);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline void *__bitmap_ptr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int flag)
>>  {
>>      struct f2fs_checkpoint *ckpt = F2FS_CKPT(sbi);
>> diff --git a/fsck/mount.c b/fsck/mount.c
>> index 9019921..0e8fa41 100644
>> --- a/fsck/mount.c
>> +++ b/fsck/mount.c
>> @@ -975,12 +975,16 @@ int sanity_check_ckpt(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>      }
>>  
>>      cp_pack_start_sum = __start_sum_addr(sbi);
>> -    cp_payload = get_sb(cp_payload);
>> +    cp_payload = __cp_payload(sbi);
>>      if (cp_pack_start_sum < cp_payload + 1 ||
>>              cp_pack_start_sum > blocks_per_seg - 1 -
>>                      NR_CURSEG_TYPE) {
>> -            MSG(0, "\tWrong cp_pack_start_sum(%u)\n", cp_pack_start_sum);
>> -            return 1;
>> +            MSG(0, "\tWrong cp_pack_start_sum(%u) or cp_payload(%u)\n",
>> +                    cp_pack_start_sum, cp_payload);
>> +            if ((get_sb(feature) & F2FS_FEATURE_SB_CHKSUM))
>> +                    return 1;
> 
> Is this trying to fix superblock? Why is it related to SB_CHKSUM?
> 

If sb_checksum is enabled, we should not try to fix superblock.
In this situation, both sb and cp are verified with crc, so we
don't know which one, cp_payload or cp_pack_start_sum, is the
exact one.

By contraries, if sb_checksum is disabled, we could try to fix
superblock as below :)

>> +            set_sb(cp_payload, cp_pack_start_sum - 1);
>> +            update_superblock(sb, SB_ALL);
>>      }
>>  >>          return 0;
>> -- 
>> 2.19.0
> 
> .
> 




_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Reply via email to