On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:30:13PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Looks to me like 3.4 doesn't have the problem that Dave is trying to address > here because it doesn't check for MS_ACTIVE in xfs_sync_worker. You're already > good to go. Right. > Dave, what you've done makes sense b/c MS_ACTIVE is set after mount time and > cleared at unmount. This is the time during which we want the sync worker to > be running. I do think that the check is racy: The sync worker can check the > flag and continue at snail's pace, and there is nothing to prevent unmount > clearing the flag and wiping out the structures used by the sync worker. I'm fully aware of that possibility. IMO, the only thing that matters here is fixing the bug that causes data loss. Trading guaranteed data loss on a crash for a hard-to-hit unmount race condition that's never been seen outside a test lab is a no-brainer, IMO. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
