Hi Jens,
Do you have concerns with this patch? If not, can you please include it.
Thanks
Vivek
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:41:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> If a block device is hot removed and later last reference to devices
> is put, we try to writeback the dirty inode. But device is gone and
> that writeback fails.
>
> Currently we do a WARN_ON() which does not seem to be the right thing.
> Convert it to a ratelimited kernel warning.
>
> Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/block_dev.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: rhvgoyal-linux/fs/block_dev.c
> ===================================================================
> --- rhvgoyal-linux.orig/fs/block_dev.c 2015-06-18 15:54:52.339383237 -0400
> +++ rhvgoyal-linux/fs/block_dev.c 2015-06-22 14:32:29.112594493 -0400
> @@ -48,12 +48,20 @@ inline struct block_device *I_BDEV(struc
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(I_BDEV);
>
> -static void bdev_write_inode(struct inode *inode)
> +static void bdev_write_inode(struct block_device *bdev)
> {
> + struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode;
> + int ret;
> +
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> while (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) {
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(write_inode_now(inode, true));
> + ret = write_inode_now(inode, true);
> + if (ret) {
> + char name[BDEVNAME_SIZE] = "";
> + pr_warn_ratelimited("VFS: Dirty inode writeback failed for block device %s (err= %d).\n",
> + bdevname(bdev, name), ret);
> + }
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> @@ -1489,7 +1497,7 @@ static void __blkdev_put(struct block_de
> * ->release can cause the queue to disappear, so flush all
> * dirty data before.
> */
> - bdev_write_inode(bdev->bd_inode);
> + bdev_write_inode(bdev);
> }
> if (bdev->bd_contains == bdev) {
> if (disk->fops->release)
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
