[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f021003220100r29ee1ff2x11a66531e0104167@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:00:54 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] mm, fs: warn on missing address space operations
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:39:37 +1100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>
>> It's ugly and lazy that we do these default aops in case it has not
>> been filled in by the filesystem.
>>
>> A NULL operation should always mean either: we don't support the
>> operation; we don't require any action; or a bug in the filesystem,
>> depending on the context.
>>
>> In practice, if we get rid of these fallbacks, it will be clearer
>> what operations are used by a given address_space_operations struct,
>> reduce branches, reduce #if BLOCK ifdefs, and should allow us to get
>> rid of all the buffer_head knowledge from core mm and fs code.
>
> I guess this is one way of waking people up.
>
> What happens is that hundreds of bug reports land in my inbox and I get
> to route them to various maintainers, most of whom don't exist, so
> warnings keep on landing in my inbox. Please send a mailing address for
> my invoices.
>
> It would be more practical, more successful and quicker to hunt down
> the miscreants and send them rude emails. Plus it would save you
> money.
>
>> We could add a patch like this which spits out a recipe for how to fix
>> up filesystems and get them all converted quite easily.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> @@ -40,8 +40,14 @@ void do_invalidatepage(struct page *page
>> void (*invalidatepage)(struct page *, unsigned long);
>> invalidatepage = page->mapping->a_ops->invalidatepage;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
>> - if (!invalidatepage)
>> + if (!invalidatepage) {
>> + static bool warned = false;
>> + if (!warned) {
>> + warned = true;
>> + print_symbol("address_space_operations %s missing invalidatepage method. Use block_invalidatepage.\n", (unsigned long)page->mapping->a_ops);
>> + }
>> invalidatepage = block_invalidatepage;
>> + }
>
> erk, I realise 80 cols can be a pain, but 165 cols is just out of
> bounds. Why not
>
> /* this fs should use block_invalidatepage() */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!invalidatepage);
/me gets his paint bucket...
How about
WARN_ONCE(!invalidatepage, "this fs should use block_invalidatepage()")
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists