On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 05:43:24PM +0500, or10n-cli wrote:
> From 8b4f1f86101f2bf47a90a56321259d32d7fe55eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: or10n-cli <muhammad.ahmed.27@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:24:10 +0500
> Subject: [PATCH] agheader: remove inappropriate use of -ENOSYS
>
> The ENOSYS error code should only be used to indicate an invalid
> system call number. Its usage in this context is misleading and
> has been removed to align with kernel error code semantics.
>
> Signed-off-by: my.user <my.mail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c
> index 303374df44bd..743e0584b75d 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/agheader.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,6 @@ xchk_superblock(
> */
> switch (error) {
> case -EINVAL: /* also -EWRONGFS */
> - case -ENOSYS:
> case -EFBIG:
> error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> fallthrough;
> --
The comment right above what you changed says:
/*
* The superblock verifier can return several different error codes
* if it thinks the superblock doesn't look right.
.
.
*/
What you did is basically skipping superblock inode size validation,
now scrub will assume it's consistent even if it's corrupted.
Also. Please, go read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
