From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l9B2boik009420 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:37:52 -0700 Message-ID: <470D8D91.903@sgi.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:42:25 +1000 From: Lachlan McIlroy Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: review: use correct buffer flags when reading superblock References: <470C8F5B.90705@sgi.com> <20071010112821.GI23367404@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071010112821.GI23367404@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs-dev , xfs-oss David Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 06:37:47PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> When reading the superblock during log recovery we are not setting >> the correct buffer flags. Specifically we are not turning off flags >> we do not need such as XBF_ASYNC that is causing the synchronous >> xfs_iowait() to hang. We should also turn off XBF_WRITE and remove >> the buffer from the delay write queue just to be safe. > > We really don't need the removal of the write flags - the XFS_bflush() > call above the xfs_getsb() call guarantees that they won't be set.... > It's not obvious though. It wasn't obvious that ASYNC was still set and look where that got us.