On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 07:36:29AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > When we do log recovery on a readonly mount, unlinked inode > > > processing does not happen due to the readonly checks in > > > xfs_inactive(), which are trying to prevent any I/O on a > > > readonly mount. > > > > > > This is misguided - we do I/O on readonly mounts all the time, > > > for consistency; for example, log recovery. So do the same > > > RDONLY flag twiddling around xfs_log_mount_finish() as we > > > do around xfs_log_mount(), for the same reason. > > > > > > This all cries out for a big rework but for now this is a > > > simple fix to an obvious problem. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > Both patches look ok, so I'll put them on the test queue for -rc4. > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> FWIW, I don't think this is a -rc candidate. Making log recovery process unlinked inode transactions on read-only mounts is a pretty major change in behaviour. Who knows exactly what dragons are lurking at lower layers that have never been run in this context until now. Also, it's not urgent - we've lived with this behaviour for years - so waiting a month for the next merge window is not going to hurt anyone and it gives us a chance to test it - XFS developers are the people who should be burnt by the lurking dragons, not users who updated to a late -rcX kernel.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
