Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 07:40 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:36:22PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > There are a couple of options:
> > 
> > a) leave it as it is
> > 
> > b) change that set_nlink() in xfs into a 
> > 
> >   if (nlink)
> > 	set_nlink(nlink);
> >   else
> > 	clear_nlink();
> > 
> > c) remove the printk from set_nlink().  This effectively makes
> > set_nlink(0) an alias of clear_nlink().
> > 
> > IIRC your preference is c.  What do others think?
> 
> 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.

Thanks,
Miklos

--
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/