On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:11:32PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> Do not WARN_ON if set_nlink is called with zero count, just do a
>> ratelimited printk. This happens on xfs and probably other
>> filesystems after an unclean shutdown when the filesystem reads inodes
>> which already have zero i_nlink. Reported by Christoph Hellwig.
>
> Given that this is part of the normal recovery process printing anything
> seems like a bad idea. I also don't think the code for this actually
> is correct.
>
> Remember when a filesystem recovery from unlinked but open inodes the
> following happens:
>
> - we walk the list of unlinked but open inodes, and read them into
> memory, remove the linkage and then iput it.
>
> With the current code that won't ever increment s_remove_count,
It will increment s_remove_count
+void set_nlink(struct inode *inode, unsigned int nlink)
+{
+ if (!nlink) {
+ printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO
+ "set_nlink() clearing i_nlink on %s inode %li\n",
+ inode->i_sb->s_type->name, inode->i_ino);
here:
+ clear_nlink(inode);
> but
> decrement it from __destroy_inode. I suspect the right fix is to
> simply not warn for a set_nlink to zero, but rather simply increment
> s_remove_count for that case.
I don't really care about the printk. Without the printk
clear_nlink() is just a shorthand for set_nlink(0), which is fine, but
that's not what the original intention was AFAIK.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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
