Hi Darrick.
> > > BTW, This patch should be applied only over branch xfs-4.14-merge, it requires
> > > my previous patches, which are not in the master branch yet.
> >
> > Looks ok, but is there an xfstests case to cover this?
>
No,
I still don't have a xfstests to cover it, I couldn't reproduce the problem with
dquots yet, I'll focus more on this soon.
> > > if ((lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_IN_AIL) &&
> > > - lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn) {
> > > + (lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn) ||
> > > + lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
>
> ...come to think of it, shouldn't there be a couple extra pairs of parentheses
> in this somewhere?...
>
IIRC there is no need, && has a higher precedenc over ||, but I really don't
mind to add an extra pair of () here.
> > >
> > > /* xfs_trans_ail_delete() drops the AIL lock. */
> > > spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > > - if (lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn)
> > > + if (lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn) {
> > > xfs_trans_ail_delete(ailp, lip, SHUTDOWN_CORRUPT_INCORE);
> > > - else
> > > + } else if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
> > > + xfs_clear_li_failed(lip);
> > > spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > > + } else {
> > > + spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c
> > > index 2c7a1629e064..35fd6d71bc42 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c
> > > @@ -137,6 +137,23 @@ xfs_qm_dqunpin_wait(
> > > wait_event(dqp->q_pinwait, (atomic_read(&dqp->q_pincount) == 0));
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Callback used to mark a buffer with XFS_LI_FAILED when items in the buffer
> > > + * have been failed during writeback
> > > + *
> > > + * this informs the AIL that the dquot is already flush locked on the next push,
> > > + * and acquires a hold on the buffer to ensure that it isn't reclaimed before
> > > + * dirty data makes it to disk.
> > > + */
> > > +STATIC void
> > > +xfs_dquot_item_error(
> > > + struct xfs_log_item *lip,
> > > + struct xfs_buf *bp)
> > > +{
> > > + ASSERT(XFS_DQ_IS_LOCKED(DQUOT_ITEM(lip)->qli_item));
>
> ...and isn't this qli_dquot, not qli_item?
>
Yup, you are right.
> (Does this compile at all?)
>
Yes, it compiled the way it was :P
I'll wait for some extra comments here, before submitting a non-RFC patch, and
will think about how can I reproduce it on xfstests, maybe filling the
filesystem and then playing with quotas.
Thanks for the review Darrick.
Cheers.
--
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
