From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:52:31 +0100
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [GFS2] Don't use journal lock type
In-Reply-To: <20070807134510.GA19779@redhat.com>
References: <1186478767.8765.708.camel@quoit>
	<20070807134510.GA19779@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1186494751.8765.713.camel@quoit>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 08:45 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:26:06AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> >  		error = gfs2_glock_nq_num(sdp, sdp->sd_lockstruct.ls_jid,
> > -					  &gfs2_journal_glops,
> > +					  &gfs2_inode_glops,
> >  					  LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE, LM_FLAG_NOEXP,
> >  					  &sdp->sd_journal_gh);
> 
> The lock for journal N is now the same as the lock for the inode at
> block N -- that doesn't work.
> 

Yes, thats the point of the patch, after all journals are now inodes. If
we don't do that then two things happen:

 - Accesses of the journal inodes via the meta fs will not be "in sync"
with what the kernel sees
 - More importantly, and the reason why this patch was created is that
upon recovery of a journal, the cache wasn't being flushed resulting in
the blocks being sometimes "seen" again the next time a node recovers
the same remote journal.

Steve.