From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC351C4CEC4 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA3921920 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="AamNa0H8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388337AbfIRSVx (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:21:53 -0400 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:49514 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388324AbfIRSVw (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:21:52 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8IIJLLI081685; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:40 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=CEAU4fjk3a3oB6LQZhQFp/TSG6DxNiVhGIOabSkx1pY=; b=AamNa0H8IQyl0irKsBDyVLLj0bzhamNy+pY9Si87h1yTrd5/Uch+d6/8YfFhJOceAeMc noguOLuwr17F5sQURt8bTkF5qXDgg1v3VAHnYdJetb/a+DqfJxGgtR8tqK/JUFh6TXhI SZ+s5UsGUOzFIqixlfORjFgu8T2K9t00kKaWpFRhQcEhHVG4h/Jr08xcO7qf/8Qg+cM0 5AZyZivur4CkpAQRX7YUnEOjCg7UrOot/1jQ6FmnwCKb4q3B+MvOhPYBdt86bSF8594s nPd0RI29+8l947V2zD8qisv6XckjqFqwBc4nRlfDuNp7xEXrmb3RrBfSqVxUDIZTJ4rm vQ== Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2v385e5q9e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:40 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8IIIZot153903; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:39 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2v37mb0qjp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:39 +0000 Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x8IILb7m023935; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:21:37 GMT Received: from localhost (/67.169.218.210) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:21:37 -0700 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:21:35 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove xfs_release Message-ID: <20190918182135.GO2229799@magnolia> References: <20190916122041.24636-1-hch@lst.de> <20190916122041.24636-2-hch@lst.de> <20190916125311.GB41978@bfoster> <20190918164938.GA19316@lst.de> <20190918181204.GG29377@bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190918181204.GG29377@bfoster> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9384 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1909180162 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9384 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1909180162 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 02:12:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:49:38PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 08:53:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > The caller might not care if this call generates errors, but shouldn't > > > we care if something fails? IOW, perhaps we should have an exit path > > > with a WARN_ON_ONCE() or some such to indicate that an unhandled error > > > has occurred..? > > > > Not sure there is much of a point. Basically all errors are either > > due to a forced shutdown or cause a forced shutdown anyway, so we'll > > already get warnings. > > Well, what's the point of this change in the first place? I see various > error paths that aren't directly related to shutdown. A writeback > submission error for instance looks like it will warn, but not > necessarily shut down (and the filemap_flush() call is already within a > !XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN() check). So not all errors are associated with or > cause shutdown. I suppose you could audit the various error paths that > lead back into this function and document that further if you really > wanted to go that route... I agree with Brian, there ought to be some kind of warning that some error happened with inode XXX even if we do end up shutting down immediately afterwards. > Also, you snipped the rest of my feedback... how does the fact that the > caller doesn't care about errors have anything to do with the fact that > the existing logic within this function does? I'm not convinced the > changes here are quite correct, but at the very least the commit log > description is lacking/misleading. I was wondering that too -- if filemap_flush, we'd stop immediately, but now we keep going. That certainly seems like a behavior change that ought to be a separate patch from combining the two release functions? --D > Brian