[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120111152337.GA4589@thunk.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:23:37 -0500
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
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 02:12:36PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > 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.
We're going to spew messages in ext3/4 for orphan inodes as well
(thanks for Cristoph for pointing that out). I can put in a similar
kludge, but maybe there should be a _set_nlink() that skips the check?
We do our own more sophisticated check in and will do appropriate
error handling in ext4_iget() anyway, so it's just a waste in that
particular codepath anyway.
- Ted
--
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