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 (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q95IUJD0088047 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:30:19 -0500 Message-ID: <506F278C.6070306@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:31:40 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch v4 04/13] [PATCH 04/13] xfs: sync work is now only periodic log work References: <20121005171853.985930109@sgi.com> <20121005171945.888412779@sgi.com> <20121005181645.GB1056@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20121005181645.GB1056@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Ben Myers , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Dave Chinner On 10/05/12 13:16, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 12:18:57PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: >> ASSERT(mp->m_flags& XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY); >> } >> >> + xfs_log_work_queue(mp); >> + >> return error; > > I still think queueing the work item here if we return a failure is > the wrong thing to do. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs You are correct. I did not see that it was not moved when mentioned in the first series. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs