From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05977F86 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:12:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07AF304051 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id K6BLmZ5yXJ8Rqp28 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:36 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] xfs: kill xfs_bioerror_relse Message-ID: <20140829011236.GB20518@dastard> References: <1408084747-4540-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1408084747-4540-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140829003257.GF17502@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140829003257.GF17502@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, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:32:57PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > index 96c898e..758c07d 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c > > @@ -324,11 +324,13 @@ xfs_trans_read_buf_map( > > */ > > if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp)) { > > trace_xfs_bdstrat_shut(bp, _RET_IP_); > > - xfs_bioerror_relse(bp); > > - } else { > > - xfs_buf_iorequest(bp); > > + bp->b_flags &= ~(XBF_READ | XBF_DONE); > > + xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, -EIO); > > + xfs_buf_stale(bp); > > + return -EIO; > > } > > This is a large change of behavior as it doesn't hit the error > path after the xfs_buf_iowait anymore. While I don't think that > that path was entirely correct this version seems to be even less so > by not releasing the buffer reference or forcing the shutdown. The IO is synchronous, so the previous behaviour did not release the buffer here. But, yes, it needs to because we're not running the io wait on it anymore. And this happens only during a shutdown, so i don't see any need to trigger a shutdown ;) As it is, I think this gets properly fixed by the next patch.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs