On 06/22/2018 01:59 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018年06月22日 10:58, Chengguang Xu wrote:
Currently, when encoutering -ERANGE in btrfs_get_acl(),
just set acl to NULL so that we cannot get proper
acl information but the operation looks successful.
This patch treats -ERANGE as an error case and meanwhile
print real errno before translating errno to -EIO.
Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/acl.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/acl.c b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
index 15e1dfef56a5..7b3a83dd917c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/acl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
@@ -42,9 +42,10 @@ struct posix_acl *btrfs_get_acl(struct inode *inode, int type)
}
if (size > 0) {
acl = posix_acl_from_xattr(&init_user_ns, value, size);
- } else if (size == -ERANGE || size == -ENODATA || size == 0) {
+ } else if (size == -ENODATA || size == 0) {
acl = NULL;
} else {
+ pr_err_ratelimited("BTRFS: get acl failed, err=%d\n", size);
Is there any special reason to output this message even it's rate limited?
This looks much like a debug output, no to mention we have
btrfs_err/warn/info() wrapper to output with proper fs UUID.
Yeah, it will be better replacing pr_err with btrfs_err. The motivation to
print error message here is for helping debug when failing into error case.
As you know, most error code here will be override to -EIO, so I hope
to record a hint to indicate what has happened.
acl = ERR_PTR(-EIO);
in fact we should let @acl to contain the correct error code from
btrfs_getxattr(), other than overriding it with -EIO.
I'm also not so sure about the reason for overriding the errno with -EIO,
maybe it's easy to understand for end-user?
Thanks,
Chengguang.
--
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
