[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200307185200.GD99899@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:52:00 -0500
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] e2fsck: Clarify overflow link count error message
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:15:56AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> When directory link count is set to overflow value (1) but during pass 4
> we find out the exact link count would fit, we either silently fix this
> (which is not great because e2fsck then reports the fs was modified but
> output doesn't indicate why in any way), or we report that link count is
> wrong and ask whether we should fix it (in case -n option was
> specified). The second case is even more misleading because it suggests
> non-trivial fs corruption which then gets silently fixed on the next
> run. Similarly to how we fix up other non-problems, just create a new
> error message for the case directory link count is not overflown anymore
> and always report it to clarify what is going on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Applied with a fixup to to tests/f_many_subdirs/expect.1, thanks.
(Please remember run "make check" before commiting a change.)
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists