On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:33:33AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2024/7/24 18:35, Wu Bo wrote:
> > The cp_ver of node footer is useful when analyzing data corruption
> > issues.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Bo <bo...@vivo.com>
> > ---
> > fsck/dump.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fsck/dump.c b/fsck/dump.c
> > index 8d5613e..ca38101 100644
> > --- a/fsck/dump.c
> > +++ b/fsck/dump.c
> > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
> > #endif
> > #include <locale.h>
> > -#define BUF_SZ 80
> > +#define BUF_SZ 256
>
> 128 is fine?
This buffer is located in the stack. Making it a little bigger shouldn't cause a
performance drop, right?
128 seems prone to overflow if additional information is added later.
>
> > /* current extent info */
> > struct extent_info dump_extent;
> > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ void nat_dump(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t start_nat,
> > nid_t end_nat)
> > {
> > struct f2fs_nat_block *nat_block;
> > struct f2fs_node *node_block;
> > + struct node_footer *footer;
> > nid_t nid;
> > pgoff_t block_addr;
> > char buf[BUF_SZ];
> > @@ -47,6 +48,7 @@ void nat_dump(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t start_nat,
> > nid_t end_nat)
> > ASSERT(nat_block);
> > node_block = (struct f2fs_node *)calloc(F2FS_BLKSIZE, 1);
> > ASSERT(node_block);
> > + footer = F2FS_NODE_FOOTER(node_block);
> > fd = open("dump_nat", O_CREAT|O_WRONLY|O_TRUNC, 0666);
> > ASSERT(fd >= 0);
> > @@ -54,6 +56,7 @@ void nat_dump(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t start_nat,
> > nid_t end_nat)
> > for (nid = start_nat; nid < end_nat; nid++) {
> > struct f2fs_nat_entry raw_nat;
> > struct node_info ni;
> > + int len;
> > if(nid == 0 || nid == F2FS_NODE_INO(sbi) ||
> > nid == F2FS_META_INO(sbi))
> > continue;
> > @@ -66,15 +69,15 @@ void nat_dump(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t
> > start_nat, nid_t end_nat)
> > ret = dev_read_block(node_block, ni.blk_addr);
> > ASSERT(ret >= 0);
> > if (ni.blk_addr != 0x0) {
> > - memset(buf, 0, BUF_SZ);
> > - snprintf(buf, BUF_SZ,
> > + len = snprintf(buf, BUF_SZ,
> > "nid:%5u\tino:%5u\toffset:%5u"
> > - "\tblkaddr:%10u\tpack:%d\n",
> > + "\tblkaddr:%10u\tpack:%d"
> > + "\tcp_ver:0x%08x\n",
> > ni.nid, ni.ino,
> > -
> > le32_to_cpu(F2FS_NODE_FOOTER(node_block)->flag) >>
> > - OFFSET_BIT_SHIFT,
> > - ni.blk_addr, pack);
> > - ret = write(fd, buf, strlen(buf));
> > + le32_to_cpu(footer->flag) >>
> > OFFSET_BIT_SHIFT,
> > + ni.blk_addr, pack,
> > + (uint32_t)le64_to_cpu(footer->cp_ver));
>
> (uint64_t)le64_to_cpu(footer->cp_ver) ?
Is the upper 32 bits used for CRC?
I've noticed that the checkpoint version dumped is always 32 bits long.
To better compare with the current checkpoint, I only print the lower 32 bits
here.
>
> > + ret = write(fd, buf, len);
> > ASSERT(ret >= 0);
> > }
> > } else {
> > @@ -87,15 +90,15 @@ void nat_dump(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t
> > start_nat, nid_t end_nat)
> > ret = dev_read_block(node_block, ni.blk_addr);
> > ASSERT(ret >= 0);
> > - memset(buf, 0, BUF_SZ);
> > - snprintf(buf, BUF_SZ,
> > + len = snprintf(buf, BUF_SZ,
> > "nid:%5u\tino:%5u\toffset:%5u"
> > - "\tblkaddr:%10u\tpack:%d\n",
> > + "\tblkaddr:%10u\tpack:%d"
> > + "\tcp_ver:0x%08x\n",
> > ni.nid, ni.ino,
> > - le32_to_cpu(F2FS_NODE_FOOTER(node_block)->flag)
> > >>
> > - OFFSET_BIT_SHIFT,
> > - ni.blk_addr, pack);
> > - ret = write(fd, buf, strlen(buf));
> > + le32_to_cpu(footer->flag) >> OFFSET_BIT_SHIFT,
> > + ni.blk_addr, pack,
> > + (uint32_t)le64_to_cpu(footer->cp_ver));
>
> Ditto,
>
> Thanks,
>
> > + ret = write(fd, buf, len);
> > ASSERT(ret >= 0);
> > }
> > }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
