| To: | Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove efi from AIL in log recovery error |
| From: | Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:21:28 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140328160719.GA15537@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20140325195733.510384972@xxxxxxx> <20140325195819.638326569@xxxxxxx> <20140328152434.GB21961@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53359812.3090806@xxxxxxx> <20140328160719.GA15537@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0 |
On 03/28/14 11:07, Brian Foster wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:41:06AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:On 03/28/14 10:24, Brian Foster wrote:On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:06:34PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: ... Hi Mark, If we hit the scenario where we start skipping EFIs after an error, is the equivalent unpin() call from process_efi() not necessary on the subsequent EFIs? Brianyes, good catch. They will have to be decremented twice. something like: + if (!error) + error = xlog_recover_process_efi(log->l_mp, efip); + else + xfs_efi_item_unpin(&efip->efi_item, 0); + if (error) ...Ok, looks reasonable to me. An extra sentence or two in the previous comment to explain what's going on there would be nice as well. ;) Brian Probably will flip the if statement logic, but a comment is also a good idea. Thank-you for the feed back. --Mark. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove efi from AIL in log recovery error, Brian Foster |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: fix bad hash ordering, Mark Tinguely |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: remove efi from AIL in log recovery error, Brian Foster |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH v2 1/2] xfs: remove efi from AIL in log recovery, Mark Tinguely |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |