On 31.01.19 г. 16:20 ч., David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:03:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> On 2019/1/30 下午10:59, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >>> On 30.01.19 г. 16:57 ч., David Sterba wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 01:09:16PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>>> Just add one extra line to show when the corruption is detected. >>>>> Currently only read time detection is possible. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> 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 794d5bb7fe33..426e9f450f70 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c >>>>> @@ -658,6 +658,8 @@ static int btree_readpage_end_io_hook(struct btrfs_io_bio *io_bio, >>>>> >>>>> if (!ret) >>>>> set_extent_buffer_uptodate(eb); >>>>> + else >>>>> + btrfs_err(fs_info, "read time tree block corrupted detected"); >>>> >>>> I'm not sure the 'read time' is clear enoug, my suggestion is to use >>>> 'post-read' (and pre-write analogicaly). What do you think? >>> >>> >>> How about "error during tree block reading" or "error reading treeblock"? >> >> Nikolay's suggestion looks more straightforward to me. >> >> +1 for his idea. >> >> The 'post-read' still could confuse end-user IMHO. > > The idea is to distinguish if the error was because the block can't be > read or because the data it contains are wrong. In this case we can say "Read corrupted block" >
