xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: handle CIl transaction commit failures correctly

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: handle CIl transaction commit failures correctly
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 04:12:49 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1295411400-15614-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1295411400-15614-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1295411400-15614-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> index 50753d3..504a804 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> @@ -1754,15 +1754,26 @@ xfs_trans_commit_cil(
>        */
>       log_vector = xfs_trans_alloc_log_vecs(tp);
>       if (!log_vector)
> -             return ENOMEM;
> +             goto out_enomem;
>  
>       error = xfs_log_commit_cil(mp, tp, log_vector, commit_lsn, flags);
> -     if (error)
> -             return error;
> +     if (error) {
> +             /*
> +              * We will only get an error if no modifications have been
> +              * made to the items in the transaction. Hence treat it
> +               the same as a memory allocation failure.
> +              */
> +             goto out_enomem;
> +     }
>  
>       current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_FSTRANS);
>       xfs_trans_free(tp);
>       return 0;
> +
> +out_enomem:
> +     /* caller cleans up transaction */
> +     current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_FSTRANS);
> +     return ENOMEM;

_xfs_trans_commit already restores the process flags for an ENOMEM
return, so the failure from xfs_trans_alloc_log_vecs is already
handled correctly.  If we want to handle the EIO return from
xfs_log_commit_cil the same way it just needs to be turned into an
ENOMEM.  The big questions is if there's any point in having the
shutdown check in xfs_trans_commit_cil - we already do one just before
applying the trans deltas in _xfs_trans_commit, which is handled
correctly and should be sufficient.

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