On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:57:02AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:20:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So, back to the situation with the WARN_ON(). You're running > > applications that are doing something that: > > > > a) is not supported; > > b) compromises data integrity guarantees; > > c) is not reliably reported; and > > d) might be causing hangs > > > > Right now I'm not particularly inclined to dig into this further; > > it's obvious the applications are doing something that is not > > supported (by XFS or the generic page cache code), so this is the > > first thing you really need to care about getting fixed if you value > > your backups... > > While it's slightly crazy it's also a pretty easy way for users to shoot > themselve in their feet. Unlike the generic filesystems with their > simplistic i_mutex locking we have a way to assure this works properly > in XFS with the shared/exclusive iolock, so I'm willing to look into > this further. Sorry, that wasn't paticularly clear - What I was trying to say is that I'm not really interested in solving all the generic buffered/direct IO coherency issues. I agree that it should not hang, so we do need to find out why it hung.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
