On Aug 27, 2012, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + if (!in->old_inodes.empty()) {
>> + snapid_t newfirst = in->old_inodes.rbegin()->first + 1;
>> + if (newfirst > in->first)
>> + in->first = newfirst;
> Hmm, did you observe a case where in->first was already > the newest
> old_inode?
No, that was just me doing defensive programming and forgetting to add a
warning for this case ;-)
IIRC I reasoned I didn't want an already-bugfixed or already-advanced
in->first in the MDS journal to be overwritten with a buggy/outdated
->first from the inode proper. However, since I didn't put the warning,
I don't know whether it ever hit :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
