[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210305125548.GA20940@amd>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 13:55:48 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.11 070/104] f2fs: handle unallocated section and zone
on pinned/atgc
Hi!
> [ Upstream commit 632faca72938f9f63049e48a8c438913828ac7a9 ]
>
> If we have large section/zone, unallocated segment makes them corrupted.
>
> E.g.,
>
> - Pinned file: -1 119304647 119304647
> - ATGC data: -1 119304647 119304647
Ok.
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> @@ -101,11 +101,11 @@ static inline void sanity_check_seg_type(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> #define BLKS_PER_SEC(sbi) \
> ((sbi)->segs_per_sec * (sbi)->blocks_per_seg)
> #define GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi, segno) \
> - ((segno) / (sbi)->segs_per_sec)
> + (((segno) == -1) ? -1: (segno) / (sbi)->segs_per_sec)
But now we have macro that evaluates its argument two times, and we
have users passing non-trivial arguments to it. Should these become
inline functions?
fs/f2fs/segment.h: return GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi, (unsigned int)reserved_segments(sbi));
Best regards,
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists