From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "monty_pavel@sina.com" Subject: [dm-thin] problem about __shadow_block function Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:02:39 +0800 Message-ID: <2018032619023829519519@sina.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5187081004543965149==" Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: dm-devel Cc: monty_pavel List-Id: dm-devel.ids This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============5187081004543965149== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart426583760386_=----" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart426583760386_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgYWxsOg0KV2hlbiBJIHJlYWQgX19zaGFkb3dfYmxvY2sgIGZ1bmN0aW9uLCBJIGZvdW5kIGEg cHJvYmxlbSBhcyBmb2xsb3dzOg0KQWZ0ZXIgY2FsbGVkIF9fc2hhZG93X2Jsb2NrIGZ1bmN0aW9u LCBpZiB0aGUgb3JpZyBibG9jayBpcyBhbGxvY2F0ZWQgdG8gYW5vdGhlciBhbmQgcmV3cml0ZW4g YnkgYW5vdGhlciBjb250ZXh0LCBNZWFud2hpbGUgYWN0aW9uIG1lbnRpb25lZCBhYm92ZSBhcmUg Y29tbWl0dGVkIGluIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRyYW5zYWN0aW9uLCBhbmQgdGhlbiBwb3dlciBsb3NzIGhh cHBlbnMgYmVmb3JlIHdyaXRlIHN1cGVyYmxvY2sgdG8gbWV0YWRhdGEgZGV2aWNlLiBJZiB0aGUg b3JpZyBibG9jayBpcyBkZXZpY2VfZGV0YWlsc19yb290IG9mIHRoaW5fZGlza19zdXBlcl9ibG9j aywgd2UgY2FuIG5vdCBmaW5kIGFueSBkZXZpY2UgaW4gdGhpbi1wb29sLg0KSXMgaXQgcG9zc2li bGU/DQpTaW5jZXJlbHkgbW9udHkNCg0KDQptb250eV9wYXZlbEBzaW5hLmNvbQ0K ------=_001_NextPart426583760386_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A
Hi all:
When I read __shadow_block<= /span>  function, I found a problem as follows:
After called __shadow_block function, if the orig block is allocated to a= nother and rewriten by another context, Meanwhile action mentioned above a= re committed in the same transaction, and then power loss happens before w= rite superblock to metadata device. If the orig block is device_details_root of thin_disk_super_block, = we can not find any device in thin-pool.
Is= it possible?
Sincerely monty
=0A
monty_= pavel@sina.com
=0A ------=_001_NextPart426583760386_=------ --===============5187081004543965149== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline --===============5187081004543965149==--