Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1

[Ted Ts'o]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:12:36PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Yes.  a) really isn't an option - we don't want to spew thousands of
> > useless messages during a log recovery for an operation that's totally
> > normal.  b) is okay, too - but it's not just xfs that needs to be
> > covered, but any fs that support the concept of recovering from open
> > but unlinked inodes after a crash.  It's just that no one else seems
> > to have regular QA for that code path.
> 
> Since it's a ratelimited printk there won't be thousands of messages.  I
> think this is just a cosmetic issue and lack of QA isn't a problem.  If
> the messages are bothersome it can be fixed.

We're going to spew messages in ext3/4 for orphan inodes as well
(thanks for Cristoph for pointing that out).  I can put in a similar
kludge, but maybe there should be a _set_nlink() that skips the check?
We do our own more sophisticated check in and will do appropriate
error handling in ext4_iget() anyway, so it's just a waste in that
particular codepath anyway.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/