lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: check skipped pages on WB_SYNC_ALL
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:09:21 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:

> In WB_SYNC_ALL mode, filesystems are not expected to skip dirty pages on
> temporal lock contentions or non fatal errors, otherwise sync() will
> return without actually syncing the skipped pages. Add a check to
> catch possible redirty_page_for_writepage() callers that violate this
> expectation.
>
> I'd recommend to keep this check in -mm tree for some time and fixup the
> possible warnings before pushing it to upstream.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-07 22:01:06.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-07 22:01:15.000000000 +0800
> @@ -527,6 +527,7 @@ static int writeback_sb_inodes(struct su
> * buffers. Skip this inode for now.
> */
> redirty_tail(inode);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL);
> }
> spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> iput(inode);

This is quite kernel-developer-unfriendly.

Suppose the warning triggers. Now some poor schmuck looks at the
warning and doesn't have a *clue* why it was added. He has to run off
and grovel through git trees finding changelogs, which is a real pain
if the code has been trivially altered since it was first added.

As a general rule, a kernel developer should be able to look at a
warning callsite and then work out why the warning was emitted!


IOW, you owe us a code comment, please.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-09 23:51    [W:0.110 / U:1.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site