From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q2PBS96T077734 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:28:11 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VYuv7yO15ESVjbOl (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 04:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:28:01 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: avoid shutdown hang in xlog_wait() Message-ID: <20120325112801.GA7157@infradead.org> References: <1332467263-12985-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1332467263-12985-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20120324170302.GB21708@infradead.org> <20120324224648.GF5091@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120324224648.GF5091@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 09:46:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Looks good. I wonder if it might be simple to simply pass a flags > > argument to xfs_ail_delete(_bulk) which tells which kind of shutdown > > to do. > > I thought about doing that, but it seems strange and unusual to tell > code how to handle errors internally instead of returning the error > and letting the caller handle it... > > I don't mind either way, though. If you prefer I pass in the > shutdown flag, I can change it all to do that.... I don't have a strong opinion. Moving the shutdown to the caller is cleaner for sure, but it's a lot of churn when the other version would _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs