2024-05-17 11:28:20

by Zhiguo Niu

Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to check return value of f2fs_allocate_new_section

commit 245930617c9b ("f2fs: fix to handle error paths of {new,change}_curseg()")
missed this allocated path, fix it.

Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index a0ce3d0..71dc8042 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -5190,7 +5190,9 @@ static int fix_curseg_write_pointer(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
if (cs->next_blkoff) {
unsigned int old_segno = cs->segno, old_blkoff = cs->next_blkoff;

- f2fs_allocate_new_section(sbi, type, true);
+ err = f2fs_allocate_new_section(sbi, type, true);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
f2fs_notice(sbi, "Assign new section to curseg[%d]: "
"[0x%x,0x%x] -> [0x%x,0x%x]",
type, old_segno, old_blkoff,
--
1.9.1

2024-05-17 16:56:07

by Markus Elfring

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to check return value of f2fs_allocate_new_section

…
> missed this allocated path, fix it.

* Will another imperative wording be desirable for an improved change description?

* Would you like to add the tag “Fixes”?

* How do you think about to append parentheses to the function name
in the summary phrase?


Regards,
Markus

2024-05-20 01:21:55

by Chao Yu

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to check return value of f2fs_allocate_new_section

On 2024/5/17 19:26, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> commit 245930617c9b ("f2fs: fix to handle error paths of {new,change}_curseg()")
> missed this allocated path, fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>

Thanks,

2024-05-20 19:53:12

by Jaegeuk Kim

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to check return value of f2fs_allocate_new_section

On 05/17, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> commit 245930617c9b ("f2fs: fix to handle error paths of {new,change}_curseg()")
> missed this allocated path, fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index a0ce3d0..71dc8042 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -5190,7 +5190,9 @@ static int fix_curseg_write_pointer(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> if (cs->next_blkoff) {
> unsigned int old_segno = cs->segno, old_blkoff = cs->next_blkoff;
>
> - f2fs_allocate_new_section(sbi, type, true);
> + err = f2fs_allocate_new_section(sbi, type, true);
> + if (err)
> + return err;

I hesitate to apply this, since this may give mount failures forever. Do you see
a real issue with this?

> f2fs_notice(sbi, "Assign new section to curseg[%d]: "
> "[0x%x,0x%x] -> [0x%x,0x%x]",
> type, old_segno, old_blkoff,
> --
> 1.9.1

2024-05-21 00:58:47

by Zhiguo Niu

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to check return value of f2fs_allocate_new_section

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 3:52 AM Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 05/17, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> > commit 245930617c9b ("f2fs: fix to handle error paths of {new,change}_curseg()")
> > missed this allocated path, fix it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > index a0ce3d0..71dc8042 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > @@ -5190,7 +5190,9 @@ static int fix_curseg_write_pointer(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> > if (cs->next_blkoff) {
> > unsigned int old_segno = cs->segno, old_blkoff = cs->next_blkoff;
> >
> > - f2fs_allocate_new_section(sbi, type, true);
> > + err = f2fs_allocate_new_section(sbi, type, true);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
>
> I hesitate to apply this, since this may give mount failures forever. Do you see
> a real issue with this?
Hi Jaegeuk,
No I did not have a real issue related to this, just found it by code review.
it is ok not to apply this for me .
thanks a lot.
>
> > f2fs_notice(sbi, "Assign new section to curseg[%d]: "
> > "[0x%x,0x%x] -> [0x%x,0x%x]",
> > type, old_segno, old_blkoff,
> > --
> > 1.9.1