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 1AAE47FD0 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:03:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092DF304039 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JKib7tZNwBaec7bK for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:03:30 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: consider freeze levels in xfs_fs_writable() Message-ID: <20140925210330.GG4945@dastard> References: <1411647632-28240-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1411647632-28240-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20140925161756.GA25798@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140925161756.GA25798@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, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:17:56AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > index d36bdbc..9073895 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c > > @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ xfs_mount_reset_sbqflags( > > * If the fs is readonly, let the incore superblock run > > * with quotas off but don't flush the update out to disk > > */ > > - if (mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY) > > + if (!xfs_fs_writable(mp, SB_UNFROZEN)) > > This adds a new caller of xfs_fs_writable, which isn't mentioned in the > changelog. I can mention it, but it's so trivial I didn't think it was worth it. > > + /* > > + * We can be called during the fs freeze process, and we need to be > > + * able to write the superblock in that case. > > + */ > > + if (!xfs_fs_writable(mp, SB_FREEZE_FS)) > > return 0; > > And this already changes the checked freeze level, also not mentioned. The changelog says "Hence allow the caller to pass in the freeze level it is allowed to write" which is exactly what this code is doing. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs