From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaegeuk Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix wrong sum_page pointer in f2fs_gc Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:14:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20161013171421.GA6363@jaegeuk> References: <20161012232304.6667-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1bujaO-0008Vt-8L for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:14:28 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1bujaN-0005pB-97 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:14:28 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Chao Yu Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:33:19PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > On 2016/10/13 7:23, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > This patch fixes using a wrong pointer for sum_page in f2fs_gc. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > > --- > > fs/f2fs/gc.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > > index e48142f..9c18917 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > > @@ -854,16 +854,16 @@ static int do_garbage_collect(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > > > > for (segno = start_segno; segno < end_segno; segno++) { > > > > - if (get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, 1) == 0 || > > - unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) > > - goto next; > > - > > /* find segment summary of victim */ > > sum_page = find_get_page(META_MAPPING(sbi), > > GET_SUM_BLOCK(sbi, segno)); > > - f2fs_bug_on(sbi, !PageUptodate(sum_page)); > > f2fs_put_page(sum_page, 0); > > > > + if (get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, 1) == 0 || > > + !PageUptodate(sum_page) || > > Why uptodate flag of summary page can be cleared? someone truncates it? Well, it looks like no problem to remove this, since it will hit f2fs_cp_error(). I just intended to handle the above f2fs_bug_on here. I found you added the above bug_on, but it's not a big deal to remain tho. :) 718e53fa: f2fs: enhance foreground GC Thanks, > > Thanks, > > > + unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) > > + goto next; > > + > > sum = page_address(sum_page); > > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, type != GET_SUM_TYPE((&sum->footer))); > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot