lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] vfs pile 1
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:23:37AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> 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.

Looking at the callers, I'm not sure we want that warning in set_nlink()
at all, rate-limited or not. Note that it can trigger on the things
like stale NFS fhandle coming in for something that had been deleted
a while ago - IOW, it's neither a kernel bug nor fs corruption.
inc_nlink - sure, that might catch real bugs, drop_nlink - definitely,
but this...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-11 17:23    [W:0.103 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site