On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:23:37AM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:12:36PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Since it's a ratelimited printk there won't be thousands of messages. I > > think this is just a cosmetic issue and lack of QA isn't a problem. If > > the messages are bothersome it can be fixed. > > We're going to spew messages in ext3/4 for orphan inodes as well > (thanks for Cristoph for pointing that out). I can put in a similar > kludge, but maybe there should be a _set_nlink() that skips the check? > We do our own more sophisticated check in and will do appropriate > error handling in ext4_iget() anyway, so it's just a waste in that > particular codepath anyway. Looking at the callers, I'm not sure we want that warning in set_nlink() at all, rate-limited or not. Note that it can trigger on the things like stale NFS fhandle coming in for something that had been deleted a while ago - IOW, it's neither a kernel bug nor fs corruption. inc_nlink - sure, that might catch real bugs, drop_nlink - definitely, but this... -- 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
