On 5/4/11 3:26 AM, Surbhi Palande wrote:
> On 05/03/2011 11:14 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/3/11 2:27 AM, Surbhi Palande wrote:
...
>>> Should this not be reverted? I think that its a lot easier to
>>> stop a transaction between a freeze and a thaw that way! If you
>>> agree, can I send a patch for the same?
>> Only if you want the kernel to start spewing "BUG!" messages
>> again...
>>
>> -Eric
> But, then you need a much more complicated way to stop accepting the
> transactions and the writes between the freeze and the thaw? (in the
> write path and the read path)? Is this not much simpler?
I just cannot see how a solution which leads to:
>> ================================================
>> [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> lvcreate/1075 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
>> 1 lock held by lvcreate/1075:
>> #0: (&journal->j_barrier){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811c6214>]
>> jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0xe1/0xf0
can be considered viable.
You are welcome to send the patch, and if other ext4 devs concur with it then I'll be outvoted. :)
-Eric
--
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
