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 <cgxu...@gmx.com> --- 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
