| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED? |
| From: | "Nathaniel W. Turner" <nate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:12:06 -0400 |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) |
Hi folks, While doing a little light reading, I noticed the following in fs/xfs/xfs_log.c:1011 (in the 2.6.26.3 Linux kernel tree). Am I missing something, or should XFS_BUF_ORDERED be replaced with XFS_BUF_ISORDERED in this check? nate /* * If the ordered flag has been removed by a lower * layer, it means the underlyin device no longer supports * barrier I/O. Warn loudly and turn off barriers. */ if ((l->l_mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_BARRIER) && !XFS_BUF_ORDERED(bp)) { l->l_mp->m_flags &= ~XFS_MOUNT_BARRIER; xfs_fs_cmn_err(CE_WARN, l->l_mp, "xlog_iodone: Barriers are no longer supported" " by device. Disabling barriers\n"); xfs_buftrace("XLOG_IODONE BARRIERS OFF", bp); } |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED?, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: XFS internal error, Allan Haywood |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |