From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] libext2/fsck: correctly preserve fs flags when modifying ignore-csum-error flag Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:27:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20140727232746.GZ6725@thunk.org> References: <20140726003339.28334.54447.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20140726003447.28334.51963.stgit@birch.djwong.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Darrick J. Wong" Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:59583 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785AbaG0X1x (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:27:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140726003447.28334.51963.stgit@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > nor is it correct > to assume that we can unconditionally set (or clear) the "ignore csum > error" flag bit. For functions inside e2fsck, why is this true? All of the places where we are are EXT2_FLAG_IGNORE_CSUM_ERRORS are places where we set it, and then clear it after an ext2 call. So as near as I can tell it shouldn't matter. I can understand why we need to be careful for functions inside libext2fs, but in that particular case, none of the downstream functions of ext2fs_read_inode_full() modify fs->flags. So I'm really puzzled what problem this patch actually solves. Was this a theoretical concern, or was there something I missed? - Ted