xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: check for not fully initialized inodes in xfs_ireclaim

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: check for not fully initialized inodes in xfs_ireclaim
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:33:49 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1AB9A794DBDDF54A8A81BE2296F7BDFE83AF45@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20091112190657.GA32110@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1AB9A794DBDDF54A8A81BE2296F7BDFE83AF45@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:07:40PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Add an assert for inodes not added to the inode cache in xfs_ireclaim, to 
> > make
> > sure we're not going to introduce something like the famous nfsd inode cache
> > bug again.
> 
> I confess I have not looked at the radix tree
> code in detail yet, but radix_tree_delete()
> returns a value that is ignored here.  It reportedly
> will return a null pointer if the index has no
> corresponding item in the tree, so this could be
> used in the assertion rather than doing a separate
> lookup.
> 
> I think the change is fine, but would rather see
> it done without the extra lookup (though there may
> be a good reason for doing it anyway).

Sounds good, I'll redo it.

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