| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: PATCH] xfs: implement .dirty_inode to fix timestamp handling |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:08:19 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <20090901180820.GB26071@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20090827031242.GB6147@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090901180820.GB26071@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 02:08:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I managed to trigger the ASSERT in the reclaim path, so it looks both > this version and our previous code is buggy. It's back to the drawing > board for now until I gifure out what's going on. Okay, figured it out - didn't actually test the asserts as the were added last minute. Looks like we could always (before and after the patch) get into the reclaim path with the timestamp in the xfs inode not uptodate, and due to the I_CLEAR check we would never update it. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | EMPLOYMENT: £350GBP PER WEEK!, Sandex Logistics |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: implement ->dirty_inode to fix timestamp handling, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: PATCH] xfs: implement .dirty_inode to fix timestamp handling, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS corruption with power failure, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |