[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: ffs_balloc_ufs1 error handling
On Sun Dec 07 2008 at 21:55:06 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 10:34:09PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > 1) did you even read the block? Why don't you propose removing the
> > softdep conditionals from inside of it?
> It would only clutter up the discussion for no purpose. As this code is
> supposed to be removed with the rest of softdep at some point, it would
> only create churn as well.
Then please avoid sentences like "Does anyone object the attached patch",
as that will make people focus their potential objections on the patch.
> > 4) you do not state where unwinding is done now
> Did you read my mail at all? It wasn't done at all before the
> introduction of softdep. From reading the code it only forces a lot of
> serialisation and manual pruning of the buffer cache for !softdep.
I read it, but I didn't realize issues potentially fixed by softdep can
be broken without any rationale quoting that the fix came with softdep.
> > One situation where block allocation can fail even without the file
> > system being full is with B_CONTIG. Does that case still work?
> Is there any way to test B_CONTIG allocations? This looks like dead code
> right now...
flags & B_CONTIG. But an error is an error...
If you don't want to tell the list why you think your change is correct,
I move from "object" to "don't care".
Main Index |
Thread Index |