[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAeU0aNbtEipVxs4uOCXg0djTb_+sD5uxFCmTr4z=4OsiNwTOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:47:46 -0700
From: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] e2fsck: ea_inode hash validation
>> + if (fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_ATTR_HASH, pctx))
>> + goto clear_extattr;
>
> Shouldn't this be "if (!fix_problem(...))" ?
Unfortunately here "fix" means clearing all entries so it is as
intended. This is the way it was before, I haven't changed the logic.
>> -#define PR_1_ATTR_SET_EA_INODE_FL 0x010086
>> +#define PR_1_ATTR_SET_EA_INODE_FL 0x010085
>
> It would also be OK to keep the old values, and just skip 0x10084.
Done.
>> + err = ext2fs_read_inode(handle->fs, handle->ino,
>> + &parent);
>
> Rather than reading the inode again here, it would make more sense to pass the
> parent inode from the caller.
Done.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists