From: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, darrick.wong@oracle.com
Subject: current e2fsprogs maint branch test results
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:43:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131217234313.GA2183@wallace> (raw)
I've built the contents of the current e2fsprogs maint branch (4727c67dc2)
and run make check on both a Pandaboard (ARM) and an x86-64 VM. In each
case I used the following arguments to configure: --disable-uuidd
--disable-libuuid --disable-libblkid.
Both the ARM and x86-64 runs produced warnings when compiling ea_refcount.c
during make check. I posted a patch yesterday (e2fsck: fix printf
conversion specs in ea_refcount.c) that clears those up for me on both
platforms.
The ARM build and make check were otherwise clean.
The x86-64 build and make check contained one more problem - a warning while
compiling debugfs.c:
../../debugfs/debugfs.c:2462:5: warning: too many arguments for format
[-Wformat-extra-args]
This code (commit fe56188b07) is part of that used to check superblock block
numbers specified on the command line, and the error reporting has become
a little fuzzy relative to what we had previously.
Before:
root@debug1:~# debugfs -s 327b /dev/vdc
debugfs 1.42.8 (20-Jun-2013)
debugfs: Bad superblock number - 327b
After:
root@debug1:~# debugfs -s 327b /dev/vdc
debugfs 1.42.8 (20-Jun-2013)
debugfs: Bad block number - 327b
debugfs: Invalid block number: 327b
debugfs: Operation not permitted
Both strtoblk() and parseulonglong() (which it calls) output error messages
for bad/invalid block numbers, which is redundant in this case. The last
(erroneous) error message is output by the call to com_err() which also
causes the warning noted above.
It seems to me that the call to com_err() ought to be deleted, and maybe
the immediately preceding call to strtoblk() ought to be converted to a call
to parseulonglong() to restore the original messaging. I'd like to post a
patch, but there are a number of other calls to strtoblk() in debugfs now
that will produce two messages on errors, and the intent isn't clear to me.
Is this just an area that needed a little more polish?
Thanks,
Eric
next reply other threads:[~2013-12-17 23:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-17 23:43 Eric Whitney [this message]
2013-12-18 21:36 ` current e2fsprogs maint branch test results Darrick J. Wong
2013-12-23 2:50 ` Eric Whitney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131217234313.GA2183@wallace \
--to=enwlinux@gmail.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).