From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1162911AbdKRHFc (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Nov 2017 02:05:32 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:33147 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162888AbdKRHFY (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Nov 2017 02:05:24 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYPVR34EoPUfaCYGkb7ZwZdnE2c824wzLCQHI/nQ/9SFWUCH1ra15wipAzC7R2lJnC+hfy+Sg== Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:05:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josef Bacik Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] btrfs: make open_ctree error injectable Message-ID: <20171118070519.nkgh22van7ftsgom@gmail.com> References: <1510941607-3997-1-git-send-email-josef@toxicpanda.com> <1510941607-3997-3-git-send-email-josef@toxicpanda.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1510941607-3997-3-git-send-email-josef@toxicpanda.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Josef Bacik wrote: > From: Josef Bacik > > This allows us to do error injection with BPF for open_ctree. > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > --- > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > index dfdab849037b..c6b4e1f07072 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include "ctree.h" > #include "disk-io.h" > #include "hash.h" > @@ -3283,6 +3284,7 @@ int open_ctree(struct super_block *sb, > goto fail_block_groups; > goto retry_root_backup; > } > +BPF_ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(open_ctree); Ok, this looks a lot better - except the random header inclusion dependency: if a facility is in the BPF_*() namespace then it should include and not a random asm/* header... With that detail fixed: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar for the whole series. Thanks, Ingo