Could you post the patch again? I don't see this in my box. On 10/27, Chao Yu wrote: > Jaegeuk, > > Missed to apply this patch? > > Thanks, > > On 2021/9/24 17:50, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > This code looks quite confused: part of function returns 1 on > > > corruption, part returns -errno. The problem is not stable-specific. > > > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/19/207 > > > > > > Let's fix to make 'insane cp_payload case' to return 1 rater than > > > EFSCORRUPTED, so that return value can be kept consistent for all > > > error cases, it can avoid confusion of code logic. > > > > > > Fixes: 65ddf6564843 ("f2fs: fix to do sanity check for sb/cp fields > > > correctly") > > > Reported-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]> > > > > (This is good minimal fix, but eventually I believe the function > > should switch to 0/-errno... for consistency with rest of kernel). > > > > Thank you, > > Pavel > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > > > @@ -3487,7 +3487,7 @@ int f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) > > > NR_CURSEG_PERSIST_TYPE + nat_bits_blocks >= > > > blocks_per_seg)) { > > > f2fs_warn(sbi, "Insane cp_payload: %u, nat_bits_blocks: > > > %u)", > > > cp_payload, nat_bits_blocks); > > > - return -EFSCORRUPTED; > > > + return 1; > > > } > > > if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) { > >
_______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
