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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY,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 5A9D5C433E1 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:10:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAD520759 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:10:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728306AbgG1JKg (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:10:36 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:8837 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727970AbgG1JKf (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:10:35 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 22F452697912E371BFAF; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:10:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.174.178.38) by DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:10:28 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ext4: Check journal inode extents more carefully To: Jan Kara , Ted Tso CC: , Lukas Czerner References: <20200727114429.1478-1-jack@suse.cz> <20200727114429.1478-4-jack@suse.cz> From: luomeng Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:10:28 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200727114429.1478-4-jack@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.178.38] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org ÔÚ 2020/7/27 19:44, Jan Kara дµÀ: > -int ext4_data_block_valid(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi, ext4_fsblk_t start_blk, > +int ext4_inode_block_valid(struct inode *inode, ext4_fsblk_t start_blk, > unsigned int count) > { > struct ext4_system_blocks *system_blks; > @@ -344,8 +346,8 @@ int ext4_data_block_valid(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi, ext4_fsblk_t start_blk, > */ > rcu_read_lock(); > system_blks = rcu_dereference(sbi->system_blks); Because of a change in the function parameters£¬there is no 'sbi' declared. So there will be a compile error: fs/ext4/block_validity.c: In function ¡®ext4_inode_block_valid¡¯: fs/ext4/block_validity.c:345:32: error: ¡®sbi¡¯ undeclared (first use in this function) system_blks = rcu_dereference(sbi->system_blks); > - ret = ext4_data_block_valid_rcu(sbi, system_blks, start_blk, > - count); > + ret = ext4_data_block_valid_rcu(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb), system_blks, > + start_blk, count, inode->i_ino); > rcu_read_unlock(); > return ret; > }