On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:57:56PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> This BUG() has been triggered by a fuzz testing image, but in fact
> btrfs can handle this gracefully by returning -EIO.
>
> Thus, use btrfs_warn to give us more debugging information than a
> single BUG() and return error properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2: - use btrfs_warn with more debugging information instead of WARN_ONCE.
> - change the patch title.
>
> fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> index f8b6d41..5f4712c 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> @@ -2139,7 +2139,10 @@ int raid56_parity_recover(struct btrfs_root *root, struct bio *bio,
>
> rbio->faila = find_logical_bio_stripe(rbio, bio);
> if (rbio->faila == -1) {
> - BUG();
> + btrfs_warn(root->fs_info,
> + "rbio->faila is -1: (bio has logical %llu len %llu, bbio has map_type %llu)",
That's rather cryptic message for a casual user, can it be prepended by
a short summary what actually happened? Like "bad stripe for parity" or
whatever seems more appropriate to you. Also the changelog could
describe the error condition.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
