From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove xfs_release
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:25:13 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190918222513.GB16973@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190918182135.GO2229799@magnolia>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:21:35AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, we have precedence for that - see xfs_inactive_ifree(), which
logs errors noisily because we can't return errors to the VFS inode
teardown path (i.e. evict -> destroy_inode -> xfs_fs_destroy_inode
-> xfs_inactive path).
These were originally added because a static error return checker
flagged xfs_inactive() as a place where errors were silently ignored
and users had no indication that somethign bad had happened to their
file. -> release -> xfs_file_release -> xfs_release is no different
in this respect....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-18 22:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-16 12:20 minor ->release fixups and cleanups Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-16 12:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove xfs_release Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-16 12:53 ` Brian Foster
2019-09-18 16:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-18 18:12 ` Brian Foster
2019-09-18 18:21 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-09-18 22:25 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2019-09-16 12:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: shortcut xfs_file_release for read-only file descriptors Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-16 12:53 ` Brian Foster
2019-09-18 16:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-18 17:06 ` Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190918222513.GB16973@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox