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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 8464AC10F00 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 18:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AA020665 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 18:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726269AbgCGSwI (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:52:08 -0500 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:33619 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726114AbgCGSwH (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:52:07 -0500 Received: from callcc.thunk.org (pool-72-93-95-157.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.93.95.157]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 027Iq09W029801 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:52:01 -0500 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id C485A42045B; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:52:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 13:52:00 -0500 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Jan Kara Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] e2fsck: Clarify overflow link count error message Message-ID: <20200307185200.GD99899@mit.edu> References: <20200213101602.29096-1-jack@suse.cz> <20200213101602.29096-2-jack@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200213101602.29096-2-jack@suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:15:56AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > When directory link count is set to overflow value (1) but during pass 4 > we find out the exact link count would fit, we either silently fix this > (which is not great because e2fsck then reports the fs was modified but > output doesn't indicate why in any way), or we report that link count is > wrong and ask whether we should fix it (in case -n option was > specified). The second case is even more misleading because it suggests > non-trivial fs corruption which then gets silently fixed on the next > run. Similarly to how we fix up other non-problems, just create a new > error message for the case directory link count is not overflown anymore > and always report it to clarify what is going on. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara Applied with a fixup to to tests/f_many_subdirs/expect.1, thanks. (Please remember run "make check" before commiting a change.) - Ted