> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/ext3/super.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.26-rc2.orig/fs/ext3/super.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/ext3/super.c
> > @@ -395,7 +395,10 @@ static void ext3_put_super (struct super
> > ext3_xattr_put_super(sb);
> > journal_destroy(sbi->s_journal);
> > if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> > - EXT3_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT3_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
> > + if (!is_checkpoint_aborted(sbi->s_journal)) {
> > + EXT3_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb,
> > + EXT3_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
> > + }
> > es->s_state = cpu_to_le16(sbi->s_mount_state);
> > BUFFER_TRACE(sbi->s_sbh, "marking dirty");
> > mark_buffer_dirty(sbi->s_sbh);
>
> Is this bit here really needed? If we abort the journal the fs will be mounted
> read only and we should never get in here. Is there a case where we could abort
> the journal and not be flipped to being read-only? If there is such a case I
> would think that we should fix that by making the fs read-only, and not have
> this check.
Actually, journal_abort() (which could be called from journal_destroy())
does nothing to the filesystem as such. So at this moment, ext3 can still
happily think everything is OK. We only detect aborted journal in
ext3_journal_start_sb() and call ext3_abort() in that case, which does all
that is needed...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
