From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A931D7F53 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:21:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5335A188.4060400@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:21:28 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove efi from AIL in log recovery error References: <20140325195733.510384972@sgi.com> <20140325195819.638326569@sgi.com> <20140328152434.GB21961@bfoster.bfoster> <53359812.3090806@sgi.com> <20140328160719.GA15537@bfoster.bfoster> In-Reply-To: <20140328160719.GA15537@bfoster.bfoster> 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" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 03/28/14 11:07, Brian Foster wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:41:06AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> On 03/28/14 10:24, Brian Foster wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:06:34PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: ... >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> If we hit the scenario where we start skipping EFIs after an error, is >>> the equivalent unpin() call from process_efi() not necessary on the >>> subsequent EFIs? >>> >>> Brian >> >> yes, good catch. They will have to be decremented twice. something like: >> + if (!error) >> + error = xlog_recover_process_efi(log->l_mp, efip); >> + else >> + xfs_efi_item_unpin(&efip->efi_item, 0); >> + if (error) >> ... >> > > Ok, looks reasonable to me. An extra sentence or two in the previous > comment to explain what's going on there would be nice as well. ;) > > Brian Probably will flip the if statement logic, but a comment is also a good idea. Thank-you for the feed back. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs