> Looks mostly Ok to me, just a few nits...
>
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h | 7 +++++--
> > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > index 0306168..4fa68c9 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> > #include "xfs_error.h"
> > #include "xfs_trace.h"
> > #include "xfs_log.h"
> > +#include "xfs_inode.h"
> >
> >
> > kmem_zone_t *xfs_buf_item_zone;
> > @@ -1051,6 +1052,22 @@ xfs_buf_do_callbacks(
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +STATIC void
> > +xfs_buf_do_callbacks_fail(
> > + struct xfs_buf *bp)
> > +{
> > + struct xfs_log_item *tli, *lip, *next;
> > +
> > + tli = bp->b_fspriv;
>
> We can just define a local pointer to the xfs_ail rather than maintain a
> log item pointer purely for the purpose of the lock. E.g.:
>
> struct xfs_log_item *lip = bp->b_fspriv;
> struct xfs_ail *ailp = lip->li_ailp;
>
> spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> for (; lip; lip = next) {
> ...
> }
> ...
>
> It also couldn't hurt to ASSERT(bp->b_error) somewhere in here.
Sounds fair, I'll change these things
>
> > + spin_lock(&tli->li_ailp->xa_lock);
> > + for (lip = bp->b_fspriv; lip; lip = next) {
> > + next = lip->li_bio_list;
> > + if (lip->li_ops->iop_error)
> > + lip->li_ops->iop_error(lip, bp);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&tli->li_ailp->xa_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > static bool
> > xfs_buf_iodone_callback_error(
> > struct xfs_buf *bp)
> > @@ -1120,7 +1137,11 @@ xfs_buf_iodone_callback_error(
> > if ((mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_UNMOUNTING) && mp->m_fail_unmount)
> > goto permanent_error;
> >
> > - /* still a transient error, higher layers will retry */
> > + /*
> > + * Still a transient error, run IO completion failure callbacks and let
> > + * the higher layers retry the buffer.
> > + */
> > + xfs_buf_do_callbacks_fail(bp);
> > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, 0);
> > xfs_buf_relse(bp);
> > return true;
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > index a07acbf..50df5367 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > @@ -64,11 +64,13 @@ typedef struct xfs_log_item {
> > } xfs_log_item_t;
> >
> > #define XFS_LI_IN_AIL 0x1
> > -#define XFS_LI_ABORTED 0x2
> > +#define XFS_LI_ABORTED 0x2
> > +#define XFS_LI_FAILED 0x4
>
> Weren't you planning to change these to (1 << N) format?
>
Yeah, I just forgot to add it to my 'todo' for this patchset and it went to
/dev/null during all the other changes :)
I'll add it to the next one.
> Brian
>
> >
> > #define XFS_LI_FLAGS \
> > { XFS_LI_IN_AIL, "IN_AIL" }, \
> > - { XFS_LI_ABORTED, "ABORTED" }
> > + { XFS_LI_ABORTED, "ABORTED" }, \
> > + { XFS_LI_FAILED, "FAILED" }
> >
> > struct xfs_item_ops {
> > void (*iop_size)(xfs_log_item_t *, int *, int *);
> > @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ struct xfs_item_ops {
> > void (*iop_unlock)(xfs_log_item_t *);
> > xfs_lsn_t (*iop_committed)(xfs_log_item_t *, xfs_lsn_t);
> > void (*iop_committing)(xfs_log_item_t *, xfs_lsn_t);
> > + void (*iop_error)(xfs_log_item_t *, xfs_buf_t *);
> > };
> >
> > void xfs_log_item_init(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_log_item *item,
> > --
> > 2.9.4
> >
> > --
> > 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
> --
> 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
--
Carlos
--
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
