On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:44:10PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > 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...
>
Hmm you're right, I was thinking we did some other stuff before put_super which
would have caught a journal abort but it looks like thats not the case. Still
shouldn't do is_checkpoint_aborted(sbi->s_journal) since journal_destroy()
kfree's the journal. Should probably move the is_journal_aborted() check above
that or something. Thanks,
Josef
--
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
