Re: Linux 4.19.154

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2020/10/31 22:14, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>> @@ -2127,11 +2127,10 @@ static void handle_bad_sector(struct bio *bio, sector_t maxsector)
>>  {
>>         char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
>>
>> -       printk(KERN_INFO "attempt to access beyond end of device\n");
>> -       printk(KERN_INFO "%s: rw=%d, want=%Lu, limit=%Lu\n",
>> -                       bio_devname(bio, b), bio->bi_opf,
>> -                       (unsigned long long)bio_end_sector(bio),
>> -                       (long long)maxsector);
>> +       pr_info_ratelimited("attempt to access beyond end of device\n"
>> +                           "%s: rw=%d, want=%llu, limit=%llu\n",
>> +                           bio_devname(bio, b), bio->bi_opf,
>> +                           bio_end_sector(bio), maxsector);
>>  }
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_MAKE_REQUEST
> 
> Above change "block: ratelimit handle_bad_sector() message"
> upstream commit f4ac712e4fe009635344b9af5d890fe25fcc8c0d
> in 4.19.154 kernel is not completely OK.
> 
> Removing casts from arguments 4 and 5 produces these compile warnings:
> 
(...snipped...)
> For 64 bit systems it is only compile time cosmetic warning. For 32 bit
> system + CONFIG_LBDAF=n it introduces bugs: output formats are "%llu" and
> passed parameters are 32 bits. That is not OK.
> 
> Upstream kernels have hardcoded 64 bit sector_t. In older stable trees
> sector_t can be either 64 or 32 bit. In other words, backport of above patch
> needs to keep those original casts.

Indeed, commit f4ac712e4fe00963 ("block: ratelimit handle_bad_sector() message")
depends on commit 72deb455b5ec619f ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF") which was merged
into 5.2 kernel.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 07:40:49 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: ratelimit handle_bad_sector() message
Message-ID: <20201008064049.GA29599@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20201008002344.6759-1-penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <20201008002344.6759-1-penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 09:23:44AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -803,8 +803,8 @@ static void handle_bad_sector(struct bio *bio, sector_t maxsector)
>  {
>  	char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
>  
> -	printk(KERN_INFO "attempt to access beyond end of device\n");
> -	printk(KERN_INFO "%s: rw=%d, want=%Lu, limit=%Lu\n",
> +	printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO "attempt to access beyond end of device\n");
> +	printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO "%s: rw=%d, want=%Lu, limit=%Lu\n",
>  			bio_devname(bio, b), bio->bi_opf,
>  			(unsigned long long)bio_end_sector(bio),
>  			(long long)maxsector);

Please use pr_info_ratelimited, and also remove the casts now that
sector_t is guranteed to be an unsigned long long.