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 A97917F4E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:24:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4599FAC002 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bGQcIea9g4mao0sy for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:24:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:24:38 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] xfs: don't try to mark uncached buffers stale on error. Message-ID: <20131212222438.GJ10988@dastard> References: <1386826478-13846-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1386826478-13846-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20131212163629.GA2894@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131212163629.GA2894@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 Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 08:36:29AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I really don't like how this makes even more of a mess out of the > already convoluted xfs_bioerror/xfs_bioerror_else maze. Can we > maybe first merge them and document the difference before adding > even more special case branches? > > Also most uses of uncached buffers use xfsbdstrat, where we can do > error handling straight in the caller instead of playing with all > the flags manipulation mess. In all these cases no one but the > caller can find these buffers anyway, so doing all this on an > I/O error is pointless. > > The only buffer where any of this matters is the superblock one, > and given that we re-read it on mount anyway I wonder if we should > just make it a regular buffer again and let all this mess just > disappear. Ok, I agree it is a bit messy, but that code is already pretty ugly. I'd like to get this fix in first, because it's causing oopses in roughly 30% of my local xfstests runs on a couple of VMs, so I'd prefer to get the fix out there now and do the cleanup as a separate patch series. Would that be an acceptible approach to take here from your perspective? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs