diff mbox series

[v3] ext4: don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty()

Message ID 20200427013438.219117-2-harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com
State Accepted
Headers show
Series [v3] ext4: don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty() | expand

Commit Message

harshad shirwadkar April 27, 2020, 1:34 a.m. UTC 
Don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty, since the errors
indicate valid failures below Ext4.  In all of the other instances of
ext4_ext_dirty calls, the error return value is handled in some
way. This patch makes those remaining couple of places to handle
ext4_ext_dirty errors as well. In case of ext4_split_extent_at(), the
ignorance of return value is intentional. The reason is that we are
already in error path and there isn't much we can do if ext4_ext_dirty
returns error. This patch adds a comment for that case explaining why
we ignore the return value.

In the longer run, we probably should
make sure that errors from other mark_dirty routines are handled as
well.

Ran gce-xfstests smoke tests and verified that there were no
regressions.

Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
 Changes since V2:
 * Reorganized commit message

 Changes since V1:
 * Fixed incorrect return value handling in ext4_split_extent_at()

 fs/ext4/extents.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Theodore Ts'o May 19, 2020, 7:31 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 06:34:38PM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> Don't ignore return values from ext4_ext_dirty, since the errors
> indicate valid failures below Ext4.  In all of the other instances of
> ext4_ext_dirty calls, the error return value is handled in some
> way. This patch makes those remaining couple of places to handle
> ext4_ext_dirty errors as well. In case of ext4_split_extent_at(), the
> ignorance of return value is intentional. The reason is that we are
> already in error path and there isn't much we can do if ext4_ext_dirty
> returns error. This patch adds a comment for that case explaining why
> we ignore the return value.
> 
> In the longer run, we probably should
> make sure that errors from other mark_dirty routines are handled as
> well.
> 
> Ran gce-xfstests smoke tests and verified that there were no
> regressions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index f2b577b315a0..6425f4f9a197 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -3244,6 +3244,10 @@  static int ext4_split_extent_at(handle_t *handle,
 
 fix_extent_len:
 	ex->ee_len = orig_ex.ee_len;
+	/*
+	 * Ignore ext4_ext_dirty return value since we are already in error path
+	 * and err is a non-zero error code.
+	 */
 	ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + path->p_depth);
 	return err;
 }
@@ -3503,7 +3507,7 @@  static int ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized(handle_t *handle,
 	}
 	if (allocated) {
 		/* Mark the block containing both extents as dirty */
-		ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + depth);
+		err = ext4_ext_dirty(handle, inode, path + depth);
 
 		/* Update path to point to the right extent */
 		path[depth].p_ext = abut_ex;