On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:09:21 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In WB_SYNC_ALL mode, filesystems are not expected to skip dirty pages on > temporal lock contentions or non fatal errors, otherwise sync() will > return without actually syncing the skipped pages. Add a check to > catch possible redirty_page_for_writepage() callers that violate this > expectation. > > I'd recommend to keep this check in -mm tree for some time and fixup the > possible warnings before pushing it to upstream. > > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/fs-writeback.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-07 22:01:06.000000000 +0800 > +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-07 22:01:15.000000000 +0800 > @@ -527,6 +527,7 @@ static int writeback_sb_inodes(struct su > * buffers. Skip this inode for now. > */ > redirty_tail(inode); > + WARN_ON_ONCE(wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL); > } > spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > iput(inode); This is quite kernel-developer-unfriendly. Suppose the warning triggers. Now some poor schmuck looks at the warning and doesn't have a *clue* why it was added. He has to run off and grovel through git trees finding changelogs, which is a real pain if the code has been trivially altered since it was first added. As a general rule, a kernel developer should be able to look at a warning callsite and then work out why the warning was emitted! IOW, you owe us a code comment, please. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
