Re: [PATCH] ext4/jbd2: don't wait (forever) for stale tid caused by wraparound

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:46:38PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Good catch! But shouldn't we rather fix jbd2_log_wait_commit() instead of
> inventing new function?

In most of the places where we call jbd2_log_start_commit(), we're
actually starting the current running transaction.  So the fact that
we pass in a tid, and we're having to validate that the tid is
actually a valid one, is a bit of a waste.  So in the long run I think
it's worth rethinking whether or not jbd2_log_{start,wait}_commit()
should exist in their current form, or whether we should reorganize
their functionality (i.e., by having a jbd2_start_running_commit(),
for example.).  Piling on fixes to jbd2_log_wait_commit() would make
it get even more complicated, and I think if we separate out the
various ways in which we use these functions, we can make the code
simpler and easier to read.

In fact, I had started making this rather large set of changes when I
decided it would be better to save that kind of wholesale refactoring
for the next merge window.  So the reason why I ended up fixing the
patch the way I did was to keep things simple.

Also as I mentioned in the commit description, by using a single
function I was also able to optimize the locking the locking somewhat.

						- Ted