From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [192.26.58.22]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8M4CrGr009983 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:12:53 -0700 Message-ID: <48D71B9D.2040800@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:14:21 +1000 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove xfs_iext_irec_compact_full() References: <48D7160B.8020108@sgi.com> <48D71701.6070900@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <48D71701.6070900@sandeen.net> 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: Eric Sandeen Cc: lachlan@sgi.com, xfs-dev , xfs-oss Eric Sandeen wrote: > Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> Yet another bug was found in xfs_iext_irec_compact_full() and while the >> source of the bug was found it wasn't an easy task to track it down because >> the conditions are very difficult to reproduce. Code that is difficult to >> reach is difficult to test and debug. > > It might be nice to give credit to those who helped find it in the commit ;) yes, this is a very significant bug to find, thanks. I'm wondering whether it would be worth auditing or re-reviewing the entire incore-extents-optimization patchset (if that's possible against the current code base). Or should we just fix this and move on - let the testing speak for itself? The hard to hit code paths are a worry IMO. Cheers -- Mark