On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:36:22PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > There are a couple of options: > > a) leave it as it is > > b) change that set_nlink() in xfs into a > > if (nlink) > set_nlink(nlink); > else > clear_nlink(); > > c) remove the printk from set_nlink(). This effectively makes > set_nlink(0) an alias of clear_nlink(). > > IIRC your preference is c. What do others think? Yes. a) really isn't an option - we don't want to spew thousands of useless messages during a log recovery for an operation that's totally normal. b) is okay, too - but it's not just xfs that needs to be covered, but any fs that support the concept of recovering from open but unlinked inodes after a crash. It's just that no one else seems to have regular QA for that code path. -- 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
