| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [PATCH] xfs: check for not fully initialized inodes in xfs_ireclaim, Alex Elder |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.31.6: XFS DEBUG: Assertions cause kernel OOPS., Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [PATCH] xfs: check for not fully initialized inodes in xfs_ireclaim, Alex Elder |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] xfs: improve metadata I/O merging in the elevator, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |