On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> 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
...and please don't send the same email to us four times in a row.
--D
