Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback

From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:04:21 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CE56AA5.4030705@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101118091053.c275e1f2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On 11/18/10 11:10 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:55:18 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Can we just delete writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle() and
>>> writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle()?  The changelog for 17bd55d037a02 is
>>> pretty handwavy - do we know that deleting these things would make a
>>> jot of difference?
>>
>> Really?  I thought it was pretty decent ;)
>>
>> Anyway, xfstests 204, "Test out ENOSPC flushing on small filesystems."
>> shows the problem clearly, IIRC.  I should have included that in the
>> changelog, I suppose, sorry.
> 
> Your email didn't really impart any information :(
> 
> I suppose I could accidentally delete those nasty little functions in a
> drivers/parport patch then wait and see if anyone notices.
> 

Um, ok, then, to answer the question directly :

No, please don't delete those functions, it will break ENOSPC handling
in ext4 as shown by xfstests regression test #204 ...

-Eric