Re: [PATCH] jbd2: Silence warnings about non-uptodate buffers

Andrew Morton
2008-05-29T04:00:07Z

On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:56:12 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:

> When underlying block device becomes unavailable (e.g. someone pulling an
> USB stick from under us), kernel produces warning about non-uptodate buffer
> (superblock) being marked dirty. Silence these warnings by making buffer
> uptodate before marking it dirty.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
> fs/jbd2/journal.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> index 2e24567..55de8f7 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> @@ -1261,6 +1261,7 @@ void jbd2_journal_update_superblock(journal_t *journal, int wait)
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
>
> BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "marking dirty");
> + set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
> mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
> if (wait)
> sync_dirty_buffer(bh);

I have issues....

- Are we really really sure that we aren't about to wreck people's
filesystems when this happens? I mean, a non-uptodate buffer might
have random garbage in it, and it would be sad to write that to disk.

Either way, I do think that potentially falsely setting BH_Uptodate
just to squish a WARN_ON_ONCE() is not a good solution. Better to
set a new BH_Nowarn, or to call a new mark_buffer_dirty_nowarn() here.

- Did the reads of these buffers encounter an IO error? If so,
perhaps we could set a new BH_GotIOError or something.

Even if I'm completely wrong about everything as usual, I do think that
the code change should at least include a comment explaining why the
filesystem is doing set_buffer_uptodate() in such a weird place.

One nice way of adding that comment would be to implement a new

/*
* comment goes here
*/
set_buffer_uptodate_for_mark_buffer_dirty(struct buffer_head *bh); /* needs better name */

and call that.

But I agree with me: this looks like abuse of buffer_uptodate(), and a
mark_buffer_dirty_nowarn() would be a cleaner solution.