On 3/13/17 8:23 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > I think some ASSERT(!ro) calls would be prudent in the newly reachable > codepaths that would make modifications (in both xfs_release() and > xfs_inactive()), just to catch any future bugs that would otherwise go > undetected. Otherwise, both patches seem reasonable to me. Ok, well - we can't assert (!ro) because we /do/ get here in the early stages of an ro mount. I want to rework all this like Dave had suggested, but it's not getting done this release cycle, and I thought a couple targeted changes like this which fix the bug without making the code beautiful might still make it :) Maybe the best shortcut for now is to stash, remove, and replace the RO mount flag like we do for log recovery itself, and clean it all up in the next round. -Eric -- 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
