lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 16 May 2008 19:28:13 +0900
FromHidehiro Kawai <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] jbd: fix error handling for checkpoint io (rebased)
Hi,

Thank you for review.

Josef Bacik wrote:

> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:44:10PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
>>>> 
>>>>Index: linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/ext3/super.c
>>>>===================================================================
>>>>--- linux-2.6.26-rc2.orig/fs/ext3/super.c
>>>>+++ linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/ext3/super.c
>>>>@@ -395,7 +395,10 @@ static void ext3_put_super (struct super
>>>> 	ext3_xattr_put_super(sb);
>>>> 	journal_destroy(sbi->s_journal);
>>>> 	if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
>>>>-		EXT3_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT3_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
>>>>+		if (!is_checkpoint_aborted(sbi->s_journal)) {
>>>>+			EXT3_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
>>>>+				EXT3_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
>>>>+		}
>>>> 		es->s_state = cpu_to_le16(sbi->s_mount_state);
>>>> 		BUFFER_TRACE(sbi->s_sbh, "marking dirty");
>>>> 		mark_buffer_dirty(sbi->s_sbh);
>>>
>>>Is this bit here really needed?  If we abort the journal the fs will be mounted
>>>read only and we should never get in here.  Is there a case where we could abort
>>>the journal and not be flipped to being read-only?  If there is such a case I
>>>would think that we should fix that by making the fs read-only, and not have
>>>this check.
>>
>>  Actually, journal_abort() (which could be called from journal_destroy())
>>does nothing to the filesystem as such. So at this moment, ext3 can still
>>happily think everything is OK. We only detect aborted journal in
>>ext3_journal_start_sb() and call ext3_abort() in that case, which does all
>>that is needed...

Yes, that is why I added this check.


> Hmm you're right, I was thinking we did some other stuff before put_super which
> would have caught a journal abort but it looks like thats not the case.  Still
> shouldn't do is_checkpoint_aborted(sbi->s_journal) since journal_destroy()
> kfree's the journal.  Should probably move the is_journal_aborted() check above
> that or something.  Thanks,

Good catch, I will fix it.
Thanks!

-- 
Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Systems Development Laboratory
Linux Technology Center



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-16 12:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2008