From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l3OEGXfB029223 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:16:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:16:24 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: review [1 of 3]: lazy superblock counters - core kernel Message-ID: <20070424141624.GU32602149@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20070419231459.GX48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070423220010.GA18325@infradead.org> <20070424012808.GD48531920@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070424085147.GA28820@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070424085147.GA28820@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Chinner , xfs-dev , xfs-oss On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:51:47AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:28:08AM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > This is really quite nasty. Should we at least force a cache flush here? > > > > Ok, so the patch I sent out was an older version that had a very similar > > name to the current patch in my series (xfs-lazy-sb vs xfs_lazy_sb). > > This code doesn't exist in the version I should have sent out. > > > > The latest version, plus the changes suggested here and with the > > second patch folded back into it is attached. > > Looks like in the new code we simply ignore log reservation > failures in xfs_log_sbcount? AFAICT, the only way we can get that error is a fileystem shutdown, which means we've got an unclean shutdown and so there's no not much point in syncing the superblock counters because we'll have to recover them anyway.... > Otherwise this looks good to me. Thanks for the reviews, Christoph. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group