On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:45:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:25:42 -0600 Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --- a/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/inode.c
> > @@ -120,22 +120,9 @@ ecryptfs_do_create(struct inode *directory_inode,
> > rc = ecryptfs_create_underlying_file(lower_dir_dentry->d_inode,
> > ecryptfs_dentry, mode, nd);
> > if (rc) {
> > - struct inode *ecryptfs_inode = ecryptfs_dentry->d_inode;
> > - struct ecryptfs_inode_info *inode_info =
> > - ecryptfs_inode_to_private(ecryptfs_inode);
> > -
> > - printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Error creating underlying file; "
> > - "rc = [%d]; checking for existing\n", __FUNCTION__, rc);
> > - if (inode_info) {
> > - mutex_lock(&inode_info->lower_file_mutex);
> > - if (!inode_info->lower_file) {
> > - mutex_unlock(&inode_info->lower_file_mutex);
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Failure to set underlying "
> > - "file; rc = [%d]\n", __FUNCTION__, rc);
> > - goto out_lock;
> > - }
> > - mutex_unlock(&inode_info->lower_file_mutex);
> > - }
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Failure to create dentry in lower fs; "
> > + "rc = [%d]\n", __FUNCTION__, rc);
> > + goto out_lock;
> > }
> > rc = ecryptfs_interpose(lower_dentry, ecryptfs_dentry,
> > directory_inode->i_sb, 0);
>
> Will this cause an undesirable log storm if the underlying fs runs
> out of space?
When you're bumping up against the end of your storage space, you will
get a lot more that just this message in your logs. There are printk's
in ecryptfs_write_lower(), ecryptfs_encrypt_page(), ecryptfs_write(),
and ecryptfs_write_metadata_to_contents() that will get pretty
noisy. Is it worth wrapping those in a higher level of verbosity?
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
