Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 02:19:32 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need to force sync(2) before umounting UFS1 filesystems? Message-ID: <CAJ-FndBw_PCPYcUoDS4WMnpLd=uwDK4b-y9-vT-qignbeqPaSA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201110012137.p91Lb6FI093841@chez.mckusick.com> References: <CAGH67wSYmcxJCbTMVL%2BqWzbLojiCiBmRF98yaNL4b3d3LbvbYw@mail.gmail.com> <201110012137.p91Lb6FI093841@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/10/1 Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>: >> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 12:44:04 -0700 >> Subject: Re: Need to force sync(2) before umounting UFS1 filesystems? >> From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> >> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> >> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, freeb= sd-fs@freebsd.org, >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org> >> >> Ok. Now that I know this is the direction you guys want to go, I'll >> start testing the change. >> Thanks! >> -Garrett > > Thanks for throwing some testing at this. Please test my latest > proposed change (included below so you do not have to dig through > earlier email) as I believe that it has the least likelyhood of > problems and is what I am currently proposing to put in. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in kib/my latest message, but we don't need the coveredvnode unlocking logic because of the tegge's commit. I just think we should commit the change in policy Kirk initially submitted + a comment on top of vfs_busy() explaining why the deadlock with coveredvnode cannot happen. Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndBw_PCPYcUoDS4WMnpLd=uwDK4b-y9-vT-qignbeqPaSA>