On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:01:54 +1100,
Jason White <jasonjgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Thank you for the excellent advice. I have two more questions, then we
>can bring this thread to a close - I hope.
>
>1. Does Linux 2.4.14 with the XFS 1.0.2 patch applied contain an
> unmount bug? If not, then we can presumably conclude that it was
> the drive's write cache; and I will update to the latest Debian
> sysvinit package.
Stock 2.4.14 does not have the bug, it was introduced in 2.4.15-pre8.
Unless Eric included the patch from 2.4.15-pre8 in the 1.0.2 release,
you do not have the problem. AFAICR this patch introduced the bug, if
this change is not in your tree then you are OK.
Index: 15-pre7.1/fs/inode.c
--- 15-pre7.1/fs/inode.c Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:39:10 +1100 kaos
(linux-2.4/p/b/14_inode.c 1.7.1.2.1.5.1.1.1.4.1.8 644)
+++ 15-pre8.1/fs/inode.c Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:15:28 +1100 kaos
(linux-2.4/p/b/14_inode.c 1.7.1.2.1.5.1.1.1.4.1.9 644)
@@ -404,6 +404,8 @@ static void try_to_sync_unused_inodes(vo
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
sb = sb_entry(super_blocks.next);
for (; nr_inodes && sb != sb_entry(&super_blocks); sb =
sb_entry(sb->s_list.next)) {
+ if (list_empty(&sb->s_dirty))
+ continue;
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
nr_inodes = try_to_sync_unused_list(&sb->s_dirty, nr_inodes);
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
@@ -957,8 +959,6 @@ struct inode *igrab(struct inode *inode)
*/
inode = NULL;
spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
- if (inode)
- wait_on_inode(inode);
return inode;
}
>2. If there are any relevant bugs, I may upgrade to kernel 2.4.16 or,
> eventually, to 2.4.17 once it is released and XFS patches become
> available. In general, how stable are the developmental XFS
> releases on SGI's site or as obtained via CVS? In general I don't
> mind testing a new kernel if the worst that is likely to happen
> would be a system crash; but serious data corruption is another
> matter entirely. Of course, I realize that any testing is
> completely at my own risk.
The CVS tree is bleeding edge with minimal testing, it has not been run
through a full QA check. Since Marcelo seems to be making sure that
2.4.17 is stable before it is released I would recommend waiting for
the 2.4.17 kernel and the XFS split patches, there are too many bugs in
2.4.16 base for my liking. I will not generate the split patches until
3-4 days after 2.4.17-XFS hits the CVS tree, so the code has gone
through QA before the patches are released.
|