Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: Correct value printed by assertions/BUG_ON/WARN_ON

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Qu,

Yes, the assert for ifdef BTRFS_DIABLE_BACKTRACE is not correct. The
condition should not have a not(!).

Thanks for reporting.

On 12/05/2016 01:10 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi, Goldwyn and David,
> 
> This patch seems to cause btrfs test case 023 to fail.
> 
> Bisect leads me to this patch.
> 
> 
> $ ./btrfs check ~/quota_balance_loop_backref.raw.restored
> Checking filesystem on /home/adam/quota_balance_loop_backref.raw.restored
> UUID: c33c5ce3-3ad9-4320-9201-c337c04e0051
> checking extents
> btrfs: cmds-check.c:12284: build_roots_info_cache: Assertion `!(ret ==
> 0)' failed.
> Aborted (core dumped)
> 
> 
> And gdb backref:
> #0  0x00007ffff6fd204f in raise () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
> #1  0x00007ffff6fd347a in abort () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
> #2  0x00007ffff6fcaea7 in __assert_fail_base () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
> #3  0x00007ffff6fcaf52 in __assert_fail () from /usr/lib/libc.so.6
> #4  0x0000000000440426 in build_roots_info_cache (info=0x6f43c0) at
> cmds-check.c:12284
> #5  0x0000000000440945 in repair_root_items (info=0x6f43c0) at
> cmds-check.c:12412
> #6  0x00000000004418c3 in cmd_check (argc=2, argv=0x7fffffffe100) at
> cmds-check.c:12892
> #7  0x000000000040a74c in main (argc=2, argv=0x7fffffffe100) at btrfs.c:301
> 
> 
> For frame 4:
> (gdb) frame 4
> #4  0x0000000000440426 in build_roots_info_cache (info=0x6f43c0) at
> cmds-check.c:12284
> 12284                ASSERT(ret == 0);
> (gdb) list
> 12279                rii->cache_extent.start = root_id;
> 12280                rii->cache_extent.size = 1;
> 12281                rii->level = (u8)-1;
> 12282                entry = &rii->cache_extent;
> 12283                ret = insert_cache_extent(roots_info_cache, entry);
> 12284                ASSERT(ret == 0);
> 12285            } else {
> 12286                rii = container_of(entry, struct root_item_info,
> 12287                           cache_extent);
> 12288            }
> (gdb) print ret
> $1 = 0
> 
> For me, ASSERT(ret == 0) seems quite safe and common here.
> Doesn't the patch changed the ASSERT() behavior?
> 
> Thanks,
> Qu
> 
> At 11/30/2016 12:24 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The values passed to BUG_ON/WARN_ON are negated(!) and printed, which
>> results in printing the value zero for each bug/warning. For example:
>> volumes.c:988: btrfs_alloc_chunk: Assertion `ret` failed, value 0
>>
>> This is not useful. Instead changed to print the value of the parameter
>> passed to BUG_ON()/WARN_ON(). The value needed to be changed to long
>> to accomodate pointers being passed.
>>
>> Also, consolidated assert() and BUG() into ifndef.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  kerncompat.h | 35 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kerncompat.h b/kerncompat.h
>> index ed9a042..9bd25bd 100644
>> --- a/kerncompat.h
>> +++ b/kerncompat.h
>> @@ -88,39 +88,36 @@ static inline void print_trace(void)
>>  }
>>
>>  static inline void assert_trace(const char *assertion, const char
>> *filename,
>> -                  const char *func, unsigned line, int val)
>> +                  const char *func, unsigned line, long val)
>>  {
>> -    if (val)
>> +    if (!val)
>>          return;
>>      if (assertion)
>> -        fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d: %s: Assertion `%s` failed, value %d\n",
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d: %s: Assertion `%s` failed, value %ld\n",
>>              filename, line, func, assertion, val);
>>      else
>> -        fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d: %s: Assertion failed, value %d.\n",
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d: %s: Assertion failed, value %ld.\n",
>>              filename, line, func, val);
>>      print_trace();
>>      abort();
>>      exit(1);
>>  }
>>
>> -#define BUG() assert_trace(NULL, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, 0)
>> -#else
>> -#define BUG() assert(0)
>>  #endif
>>
>>  static inline void warning_trace(const char *assertion, const char
>> *filename,
>> -                  const char *func, unsigned line, int val,
>> +                  const char *func, unsigned line, long val,
>>                    int trace)
>>  {
>> -    if (val)
>> +    if (!val)
>>          return;
>>      if (assertion)
>>          fprintf(stderr,
>> -            "%s:%d: %s: Warning: assertion `%s` failed, value %d\n",
>> +            "%s:%d: %s: Warning: assertion `%s` failed, value %ld\n",
>>              filename, line, func, assertion, val);
>>      else
>>          fprintf(stderr,
>> -            "%s:%d: %s: Warning: assertion failed, value %d.\n",
>> +            "%s:%d: %s: Warning: assertion failed, value %ld.\n",
>>              filename, line, func, val);
>>  #ifndef BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE
>>      if (trace)
>> @@ -299,17 +296,15 @@ static inline long IS_ERR(const void *ptr)
>>  #define vfree(x) free(x)
>>
>>  #ifndef BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE
>> -#define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, !(c))
>> -#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
>> !(c), 1)
>> +#define BUG_ON(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
>> (long)(c))
>> +#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
>> (long)(c), 1)
>> +#define    ASSERT(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
>> (long)!(c))
>> +#define BUG() assert_trace(NULL, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, 1)
>>  #else
>>  #define BUG_ON(c) assert(!(c))
>> -#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
>> !(c), 0)
>> -#endif
>> -
>> -#ifndef BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE
>> -#define    ASSERT(c) assert_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__, (c))
>> -#else
>> -#define ASSERT(c) assert(c)
>> +#define WARN_ON(c) warning_trace(#c, __FILE__, __func__, __LINE__,
>> (long)(c), 0)
>> +#define ASSERT(c) assert(!(c))

This should be assert(c), without the not(!)

>> +#define BUG() assert(0)
>>  #endif
>>
>>  #define container_of(ptr, type, member) ({                      \
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Goldwyn
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux