On 12/29/2016 02:23 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> There are only two reasons for xfs_log_force / xfs_log_force_lsn to fail:
> one is an I/O error, for which xlog_bdstrat already logs a warning, and
> the second is an already shutdown log due to a previous I/O errors. In
> the latter case we'll already have a previous indication for the actual
> error, but the large stream of misleading warnings from xfs_log_force
> will probably scroll it out of the message buffer.
>
> Simply removing the warnings thus makes the XFS log reporting significantly
> better.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
This sounds like a good idea, though I haven't really reviewed
the code itself. But I'd say a one line comment indicating why
errors from _xfs_log_force() are being ignored might be good.
-Alex
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 12 ++----------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> index c39ac14..b1469f0 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> @@ -3317,12 +3317,8 @@ xfs_log_force(
> xfs_mount_t *mp,
> uint flags)
> {
> - int error;
> -
> trace_xfs_log_force(mp, 0, _RET_IP_);
> - error = _xfs_log_force(mp, flags, NULL);
> - if (error)
> - xfs_warn(mp, "%s: error %d returned.", __func__, error);
> + _xfs_log_force(mp, flags, NULL);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -3466,12 +3462,8 @@ xfs_log_force_lsn(
> xfs_lsn_t lsn,
> uint flags)
> {
> - int error;
> -
> trace_xfs_log_force(mp, lsn, _RET_IP_);
> - error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, lsn, flags, NULL);
> - if (error)
> - xfs_warn(mp, "%s: error %d returned.", __func__, error);
> + _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, lsn, flags, NULL);
> }
>
> /*
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
