From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582A87F50 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:56:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B71AC001 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id YmiMicz8VgwfFK3z for ; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 05:56:42 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: more shutdown-related fixes Message-ID: <20130903195642.GE23571@dastard> References: <1378208858-20557-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130903190210.GA23072@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130903190210.GA23072@infradead.org> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:02:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:47:36PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > More fixes as a result of forced shutdown testing. The first is > > fixing yet another hole in the buf log item freein logic when a > > transaction is aborted, and the other removes the asserts from the > > inode buffer checking so that verifiers return errors rather than > > crashing the system. > > Btw, I've been wondering for a while if we need a major change to how > the buf item refcounting works. All these little special cases in there > are utterly non-intuitive. I've not looked very deep yet, but a normal > scheme where every reference to it increments the refcount, and we > simply free it when that hits zero should work here as well. We'd > still need flags for the abort and clean conditions, but it would still > be way simpler than what we have now. Yes, it makes sense to do, but I haven't considered it yet as I have other things to worry about right now. We'd still need the AIL removal on abort, though, as that is still the last place we'll see it on a shutdown... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs