[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120111124001.GA834@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:40:01 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:36:22PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> There are a couple of options:
>
> a) leave it as it is
>
> b) change that set_nlink() in xfs into a
>
> if (nlink)
> set_nlink(nlink);
> else
> clear_nlink();
>
> c) remove the printk from set_nlink(). This effectively makes
> set_nlink(0) an alias of clear_nlink().
>
> IIRC your preference is c. What do others think?
Yes. a) really isn't an option - we don't want to spew thousands of
useless messages during a log recovery for an operation that's totally
normal. b) is okay, too - but it's not just xfs that needs to be
covered, but any fs that support the concept of recovering from open
but unlinked inodes after a crash. It's just that no one else seems
to have regular QA for that code path.
--
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