On 12/15/16 5:36 AM, Hou Tao wrote: >>> I was talking to Eric about this larger "recovery on read-only >>> mount" problem last week on IRC - I can't find it my logs right now, >>> but IIRC I'd suggested that we should always run xfs_mountfs() >>> in read-write mount if the underlying device can be written to, >>> and then once that is complete do a rw->ro transition exactly as we >>> do for a remount,ro operation. >> >> Yeah, I have a larger patchset to try to handle this and other >> related processing that wasn't happening on ro mounts. I got >> derailed because my regression test for it ran into all kinds >> of unexpected new & unrelated bugs. So I haven't sent it yet... >> >> There were lots of little bits here and there stemming, I think, >> from old Irix code that didn't do /any/ device IO on a ro mount. >> >> -Eric > It's glad to hear that you have nearly completed the ro mount patchset, > so I will stop reworking on this problem. > > During the rework, I found two puzzling XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY checkings > at xfs_release(...) and xfs_inactive(...). In my opinion these check > should be done at VFS instead of the specific filesystem, so why > these XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY checkings there are ? Could we move the > needed check to VFS just like the things sb_prepare_remount_readonly() > have done ? Getting back to this - the reason for your original patch, I think, was that things like log recovery can get into this code without going through the vfs at all, so I think vfs checks are not always sufficient. That said, there probably are some XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY checks which are redundant. -Eric > Tao > -- 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
