lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [git pull] vfs pile 1
From
Date
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-11 14:15    [W:0.474 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site