From: Bernd Schubert Subject: Re: [PATCH] make ext4_valid_block_bitmap() more verbose Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:15:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4CE186EF.2090508@ddn.com> References: <201011130026.51268.bs_lists@aakef.fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigB52A10B275B799502A1A99CB" Cc: Bernd Schubert , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mail.datadirectnet.com ([74.62.46.229]:30156 "EHLO mail.datadirectnet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933579Ab0KOTQI (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:16:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --------------enigB52A10B275B799502A1A99CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/13/2010 12:56 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2010-11-12, at 16:26, Bernd Schubert wrote: >> The real issue we want to debug with the patch below actually came >> up while stress testing Lustre using the RHEL5.5 kernel (so >> 2.6.32'ish ext4), but a more verbose error function should not hurt >> for vanilla ext4 either. >>=20 >> make ext4_valid_block_bitmap() more verbose >>=20 >> While running our stress test suite, ext4_valid_block_bitmap()=20 >> frequently complains about an invalid block bitmap. However, e2fsck >> does not find anything. So in oder to be able to better debug this >> issue, make the function more verbose and let it complain about the >> two possible invalid bitmaps. >=20 > Bernd, thanks for sending this in. I like the idea of making these > messages more verbose, since they should rarely be hit and when they > are it would be good to know why these checks failed. Andreas, thanks for your helpful review, I will send an updated patch on Wednesday. >> + if (!valid) + ext4_error(sb, "Invalid block bitmap - block_group >> =3D %d", + block_group); >=20 > It would probably be worthwhile to also print the block number of the > bitmap itself. I guess you mean bitmap_blk here? But that changes for every of the possible checks, so I already printed it above. Is it worth to print it again? And what if more than one problem is found, might become a bit confusing then? Thanks, Bernd --------------enigB52A10B275B799502A1A99CB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzhhvQACgkQqh74FqyuOzSbcgCfUUG6g3nlyDTy/yTzamnWQZOh eqMAoKTUEtnBZQFZCYn+Q8qrLgjUYx7H =Cvwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigB52A10B275B799502A1A99CB--