From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:35864 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726200AbfHLT5t (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:57:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:55:30 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: xfs: xfs_log: Don't use KM_MAYFAIL at xfs_log_reserve(). Message-ID: <20190812195530.GK7138@magnolia> References: <20190729215657.GI7777@dread.disaster.area> <1564653995-9004-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20190801185057.GT30113@42.do-not-panic.com> <20190801204614.GD7138@magnolia> <20190802222158.GU30113@42.do-not-panic.com> <126f1f28-de58-815c-bd37-424a06216884@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <126f1f28-de58-815c-bd37-424a06216884@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Luis Chamberlain , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , Brian Foster On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 07:57:27PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2019/08/03 7:21, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure this didn't solve the underlying stale data exposure > >> problem, which might be why you think this is "opaque". It fixes a bug > >> that causes data writeback failure (which was the exposure vector this > >> time) but I think the ultimate fix for the exposure problem are the two > >> patches I linked to quite a ways back in this discussion.... > >> > >> --D > >> > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?id=bd012b434a56d9fac3cbc33062b8e2cd6e1ad0a0 > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?id=adcf7c0c87191fd3616813c8ce9790f89a9a8eba > > > > Got it, thanks! Even with this, I still think the current commit could > > say a bit a more about the effects of not having this patch applied. > > What are the effects of say having the above two patches applied but not > > the one being submitted now? > > Is this patch going to be applied as-is? Or, someone have a plan to > rewrite the changelog? The first one, since the patch eliminates a vector to the writeback race problem but does not iself solve the race. --D