xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: return -EINVAL instead of -EUCLEAN when mounting non-xf

To: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: return -EINVAL instead of -EUCLEAN when mounting non-xfs
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:32:12 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Phil White <pwhite@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1356823010-29768-1-git-send-email-slyfox@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20121230015615.6cc9e03c@sf> <1356823010-29768-1-git-send-email-slyfox@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On 12/29/12 5:16 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> It fixes boot panic when trying to boot from btrfs filesystem.
> kernel tries to mount as xfs and gets fatal -EUCLEAN:
> 
> [    0.170000] VFS: Cannot open root device "ubda" or unknown-block(98,0): 
> error -117
> [    0.170000] Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the 
> available partitions:
> [    0.170000] 6200         1048576 ubda  driver: uml-blkdev
> [    0.170000] Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 
> unknown-block(98,0)
> 
> init/do_mounts.c expects only -EINVAL as 'retry another' option.
> Fixes regression introduced by commit 98021821a502db347bd9c7671beeee6e8ce07ea6

yeah, that should work; great minds think alike ;)  Our patches
crossed in the ether I guess.

XFS uses EWRONGFS as an alias for EINVAL internally in these cases,
so maybe we should stick with that for consistency, *shrug*

-Eric

> Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Phil White <pwhite@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index da50846..379cac1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -641,41 +641,41 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
>  /*
>   * We may be probed for a filesystem match, so we may not want to emit
>   * messages when the superblock buffer is not actually an XFS superblock.
>   * If we find an XFS superblock, the run a normal, noisy mount because we are
>   * really going to mount it and want to know about errors.
>   */
>  static void
>  xfs_sb_quiet_read_verify(
>       struct xfs_buf  *bp)
>  {
>       struct xfs_sb   sb;
>  
>       xfs_sb_from_disk(&sb, XFS_BUF_TO_SBP(bp));
>  
>       if (sb.sb_magicnum == XFS_SB_MAGIC) {
>               /* XFS filesystem, verify noisily! */
>               xfs_sb_read_verify(bp);
>               return;
>       }
>       /* quietly fail */
> -     xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EFSCORRUPTED);
> +     xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EINVAL);
>  }
>  
>  static void
>  xfs_sb_write_verify(
>       struct xfs_buf  *bp)
>  {
>       xfs_sb_verify(bp);
>  }
>  
>  const struct xfs_buf_ops xfs_sb_buf_ops = {
>       .verify_read = xfs_sb_read_verify,
>       .verify_write = xfs_sb_write_verify,
>  };
>  
>  static const struct xfs_buf_ops xfs_sb_quiet_buf_ops = {
>       .verify_read = xfs_sb_quiet_read_verify,
>       .verify_write = xfs_sb_write_verify,
>  };
>  
>  /*
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>