Re: [PATCH 5/8] btrfs: Increment device corruption error in case of checksum error

Nikolay Borisov
2020-07-02T14:44:06Z

On 2.07.20 г. 16:21 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 02/07/2020 14:41, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Now that btrfs_io_bio have access to btrfs_device we can safely
>> increment the device corruption counter on error. There is one notable
>> exception - repair bios for raid. Since those don't go through the
>> normal submit_stripe_bio callpath but through raid56_parity_recover thus
>> repair bios won't have their device set.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/4857863.FCrPRfMyHP@liv/
>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index e7600b0fd9b5..c6824d0ce59d 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -2822,6 +2822,9 @@ static int check_data_csum(struct inode *inode, struct btrfs_io_bio *io_bio,
>> zeroit:
>> btrfs_print_data_csum_error(BTRFS_I(inode), start, csum, csum_expected,
>> io_bio->mirror_num);
>> + if (io_bio->dev)
>> + btrfs_dev_stat_inc_and_print(io_bio->dev,
>> + BTRFS_DEV_STAT_CORRUPTION_ERRS);
>> memset(kaddr + pgoff, 1, len);
>> flush_dcache_page(page);
>> kunmap_atomic(kaddr);
>
> Any chance you could do a follow up merging that weird zeroit label
> into the memset() block?
>
> It kind of disturbs the reading flow of that function and in fact it
> doesn't even zero the data
>

Makes sense, it doesn't even look that bad at all in terms of line length.