From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933201Ab2AKPYK (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:24:10 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:56939 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757105Ab2AKPYH (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:24:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:23:37 -0500 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Toshiyuki Okajima Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1 Message-ID: <20120111152337.GA4589@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , Miklos Szeredi , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Toshiyuki Okajima References: <20120105022318.GG23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20120111115846.GA2646@infradead.org> <1326285382.13736.4.camel@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <20120111124001.GA834@infradead.org> <1326287556.13736.12.camel@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1326287556.13736.12.camel@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on test.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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