| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Remove xfs_iext_irec_compact_full() |
| From: | Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:14:21 +1000 |
| Cc: | lachlan@xxxxxxx, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <48D71701.6070900@sandeen.net> |
| Organization: | SGI Engineering |
| References: | <48D7160B.8020108@sgi.com> <48D71701.6070900@sandeen.net> |
| Reply-to: | markgw@xxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) |
|
Eric Sandeen wrote: Lachlan McIlroy wrote:Yet another bug was found in xfs_iext_irec_compact_full() and while the source of the bug was found it wasn't an easy task to track it down because the conditions are very difficult to reproduce. Code that is difficult to reach is difficult to test and debug.
I'm wondering whether it would be worth auditing or re-reviewing the entire incore-extents-optimization patchset (if that's possible against the current code base). Or should we just fix this and move on - let the testing speak for itself? The hard to hit code paths are a worry IMO. Cheers -- Mark |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE 987246 - xail idbg command doesn't increment count in each loop, Lachlan McIlroy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Remove xfs_iext_irec_compact_full(), Lachlan McIlroy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Remove xfs_iext_irec_compact_full(), Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Remove xfs_iext_irec_compact_full(), Lachlan McIlroy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |