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. No? -- 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
