On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:45:50PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > Sure, I will do so tomorrow - but since it can't be reproduced > on-demand, all I'll be able to do is to watch for independent > calls with very close time stamps, and confirm they were not > interleaved. Well, if the resulting patch causes jbd_debug() messages to be issued correctly, I have every confidence that they won't be interleaved; the %pV structure was used to solve this very problem, and it's used all over the kernel. In fact we've used it __ext4_error()/ext4_error() to solve this exact same issue of interleaved messages. > What about the state assert being done outside of the state > lock? Should I keep that as a separate patch so that the > assert isn't checking what could possibly be a transient value? Ah, I missed that since I had been focusing on the jbd_debug(). That's a good catch, we'll still need this patch to make sure we're checking the state assert under the j_state lock. But with the fixed jbd_debug() we can keep the jbd_debug() statement outside of the j_state_lock critical region. Cheers, - Ted -- 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
