Excerpts from Andrew Morton's message of 2010-11-18 13:36:38 -0500: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:04:21 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 11/18/10 11:10 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:55:18 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>> Can we just delete writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle() and > > >>> writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle()? The changelog for 17bd55d037a02 is > > >>> pretty handwavy - do we know that deleting these things would make a > > >>> jot of difference? > > >> > > >> Really? I thought it was pretty decent ;) > > >> > > >> Anyway, xfstests 204, "Test out ENOSPC flushing on small filesystems." > > >> shows the problem clearly, IIRC. I should have included that in the > > >> changelog, I suppose, sorry. > > > > > > Your email didn't really impart any information :( > > > > > > I suppose I could accidentally delete those nasty little functions in a > > > drivers/parport patch then wait and see if anyone notices. > > > > > > > Um, ok, then, to answer the question directly : > > > > No, please don't delete those functions, it will break ENOSPC handling > > in ext4 as shown by xfstests regression test #204 ... > > > > If those functions "fix" a testcase then it was by sheer luck, and the > fs's ENOSPC handling is still busted. > > For a start writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle() is a no-op if the device > isn't idle! Secondly, if the device _was_ idle, > writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle() uses a work handoff to another thread, > which means that the work might not get executed for another six weeks. > > So no, your ENOSPC handling is still busted and I'll be doing you a > favour when I send that parport patch. Btrfs uses it with this cool looping construct. It's an innovative combination of while, 1, schedule_timeout(), and if all goes well, break. -chris -- 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
