From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mB4CYHMq027118 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:34:18 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 23B4A169546F for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:34:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ouSAvoll9MdKz0jB for ; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:34:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:33:46 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Assertion failed: atomic_read(&mp->m_active_trans) Message-ID: <20081204123346.GA7085@infradead.org> References: <492BB095.1000104@sgi.com> <4934AAA9.5090405@sgi.com> <20081203104849.GF15485@infradead.org> <20081203213950.GX18236@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081203213950.GX18236@disturbed> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig , Lachlan McIlroy , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:39:50AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:48:49AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I'd rather fix it properly. > > Sure, but in the mean time, I'd suggest changing it to a WARN_ON() > rather than an ASSERT(). That way we'll continue to have ppl bug us > about it until the VFS can support read-only remounts without racing > correctly. Makes sense. > Has that work been dropped on the floor, Christoph? We've > been holding off removing this ASSERT or adding the hack > I did to work around the common case of the assert triggering > based on the fact that the problem in the VFS would be fixed > in the next release. That was the case each release since > 2.6.25 and there doesn't seem to be much progress... Yeah, once we got the r/o bind mounts which introduces the infrastructure to deal with people dropped that ball and we never fixed it. But I just heard from Al that he's looking into some major surgery for the remount path, which should include this in the second or third batch. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs