From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBD57F47 for ; Sun, 25 May 2014 16:11:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959688F8037 for ; Sun, 25 May 2014 14:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2EGXDrEQzefBstyT (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 May 2014 14:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 17:11:30 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH] do_mounts: try all available filesystems before panicking Message-ID: <20140525211129.GA5243@thunk.org> References: <1399314889-9829-1-git-send-email-plamen.sisi@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Linus Torvalds Cc: Plamen Petrov , sandeen@redhat.com, LKML , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 01:04:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The fact is, I think xfs is just buggy. Returning 38 (ENOSYS) is > totally insane. "No such system call"? Somebody is on some bad bad > drugs. Not that the mount_block_root() loop and error handling might > not be a good thing to perhaps tweak _too_, but at the very least your > patch means that now it no longer prints out the error number at all. There's only a single instance of ENOSYS in fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c: /* * We must be able to do sector-sized and sector-aligned IO. */ if (sector_size > sbp->sb_sectsize) { if (loud) xfs_warn(mp, "device supports %u byte sectors (not %u)", sector_size, sbp->sb_sectsize); error = ENOSYS; goto release_buf; } Plamen, does changing the ENOSYS to EINVAL above fix things for you? > Anyway, I'm also not seeing why that xfs error would be new to 3.14, > though.. Adding the XFS people to the cc. If I had to guess, commit daba5427d is new to 3.14, and it might explain the change in behavior. Cheers, - Ted _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs