[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326287556.13736.12.camel@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:12:36 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: 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, 2012-01-11 at 07:40 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
Since it's a ratelimited printk there won't be thousands of messages. I
think this is just a cosmetic issue and lack of QA isn't a problem. If
the messages are bothersome it can be fixed.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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