[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b0a548a-5b04-24a6-944d-348d15605dd2@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 11:06:43 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fsverity: stop using PG_error to track error status
On 2022/11/24 6:19, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:21:06AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:58:07AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>>>
>>> As a step towards freeing the PG_error flag for other uses, change ext4
>>> and f2fs to stop using PG_error to track verity errors. Instead, if a
>>> verity error occurs, just mark the whole bio as failed. The coarser
>>> granularity isn't really a problem since it isn't any worse than what
>>> the block layer provides, and errors from a multi-page readahead aren't
>>> reported to applications unless a single-page read fails too.
>>>
>>> f2fs supports compression, which makes the f2fs changes a bit more
>>> complicated than desired, but the basic premise still works.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> In v3, I made a small simplification to the f2fs changes. I'm also only
>>> sending the fsverity patch now, since the fscrypt one is now upstream.
>>>
>>> fs/ext4/readpage.c | 8 ++----
>>> fs/f2fs/compress.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
Hi Eric,
Result of "grep PageError fs/f2fs/* -n"
...
fs/f2fs/gc.c:1364: ClearPageError(page);
fs/f2fs/inline.c:177: ClearPageError(page);
fs/f2fs/node.c:1649: ClearPageError(page);
fs/f2fs/node.c:2078: if (TestClearPageError(page))
fs/f2fs/segment.c:3406: ClearPageError(page);
Any plan to remove above PG_error flag operations? Maybe in a separated patch?
Thanks,
>>> fs/verity/verify.c | 12 ++++-----
>>> 4 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>>
>> I've applied this to the fsverity tree for 6.2.
>>
>> Reviews would be greatly appreciated, of course.
>>
>
> Jaegeuk and Chao, can I get a review or ack from one of you?
>
> - Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists