From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D84C433E3 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:59:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB2D2070B for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:59:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728411AbgG0K7b (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:59:31 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47356 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727775AbgG0K7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:59:30 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B1DAC12; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A010F1E12C5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:59:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:59:29 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Lukas Czerner Cc: Jan Kara , Ted Tso , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Ritesh Harjani , Wolfgang Frisch Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ext4: Check journal inode extents more carefully Message-ID: <20200727105929.GL23179@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20200715131812.7243-1-jack@suse.cz> <20200715131812.7243-4-jack@suse.cz> <20200721103855.c5a6ki32ocpe2nwe@work> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200721103855.c5a6ki32ocpe2nwe@work> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue 21-07-20 12:38:55, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > @@ -270,19 +272,19 @@ int ext4_setup_system_zone(struct super_block *sb) > > ((i < 5) || ((i % flex_size) == 0))) > > add_system_zone(system_blks, > > ext4_group_first_block_no(sb, i), > > - ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, i) + 1); > > + ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, i) + 1, 0); > > Is there a good reason we don't check the return value, it can still > fail right ? Yes, it can. I'll add a patch to the series that fixes this. > Other than that the patch looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner Thanks for review! Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR