[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Assertion failed: atomic_read(&mp->m_active_trans)

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Assertion failed: atomic_read(&mp->m_active_trans)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:33:46 -0500
In-reply-to: <20081203213950.GX18236@disturbed>
References: <492BB095.1000104@xxxxxxx> <4934AAA9.5090405@xxxxxxx> <20081203104849.GF15485@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081203213950.GX18236@disturbed>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:39:50AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:48:49AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I'd rather fix it properly.
> Sure, but in the mean time, I'd suggest changing it to a WARN_ON()
> rather than an ASSERT(). That way we'll continue to have ppl bug us
> about it until the VFS can support read-only remounts without racing
> correctly.

Makes sense.

> Has that work been dropped on the floor, Christoph? We've
> been holding off removing this ASSERT or adding the hack
> I did to work around the common case of the assert triggering
> based on the fact that the problem in the VFS would be fixed
> in the next release. That was the case each release since
> 2.6.25 and there doesn't seem to be much progress...

Yeah, once we got the r/o bind mounts which introduces the
infrastructure to deal with people dropped that ball and we never fixed
it.  But I just heard from Al that he's looking into some major surgery
for the remount path, which should include this in the second or third

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>