Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 16:26:06 -0500
From:   Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
To:     Ye Bin <yebin@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jack@suse.cz, Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] ext4: record error when detect abnormal
 'i_reserved_data_blocks'
Message-ID: <Y5EE7gm66eDNe9Us@debian-BULLSEYE-live-builder-AMD64>
References: <20221203025941.2661302-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com>
 <20221203025941.2661302-3-yebin@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221203025941.2661302-3-yebin@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

* Ye Bin <yebin@huaweicloud.com>:
> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
> 
> If 'i_reserved_data_blocks' is not cleared which mean something wrong with
> code, free space accounting is likely wrong, according to Jan Kara's advice
> use ext4_error() to record this abnormal let fsck to repair and also we can
> capture this issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/super.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index 840e0a614959..41413338c05b 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -1387,10 +1387,10 @@ static void ext4_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks)
> -		ext4_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_ERR,
> -			 "Inode %lu (%p): i_reserved_data_blocks (%u) not cleared!",
> -			 inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode),
> -			 EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks);
> +		ext4_error(inode->i_sb,
> +			"Inode %lu (%p): i_reserved_data_blocks (%u) not cleared!",
> +			inode->i_ino, EXT4_I(inode),
> +			EXT4_I(inode)->i_reserved_data_blocks);

It would be better if the arguments to ext4_error after the first were aligned
under "inode->i_sb", as you had in your first version.  That's typical ext4
practice as seen earlier in this function, though this does pass checkpatch.
Otherwise, looks good.

That said, feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>


>  }
>  
>  static void init_once(void *foo)
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>