[Ocfs2-devel] What's your opinion on the patch to fix bug 58 forkernel 2.6 porting?

[Zhang, Sonic]

Hi Mark,

	In kernel 2.6 VFS routine invalidate_list(), only super inodes with 0 =
usage counter are added to the dispose list. And the ocfs_clear_inode() =
is only invoked for the super inodes in the dispose list.

	In current OCFS2 implementation, the ocfs_clear_inode() is not invoked =
in sys_umount() for non zero super inode usage counter. And kernel 2.6 =
halts after that.

	Shall we change the way to unmount a volume in VFS of kernel 2.6?

	Thanks.


*********************************************
Sonic Zhang
Software Engineer
Intel China Software Lab
Tel: (086)021-52574545-1667
iNet: 752-1667
*********************************************=20

-----Original Message-----
From: ocfs2-devel-bounces at oss.oracle.com =
[mailto:ocfs2-devel-bounces at oss.oracle.com] On Behalf Of Zhang, Sonic
Sent: 2004=C4=EA4=D4=C230=C8=D5 9:19
To: Mark Fasheh
Cc: Ocfs2-Devel
Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-devel] What's your opinion on the patch to fix bug =
58 forkernel 2.6 porting?

Hi Mark,

	In kernel 2.6 VFS routine sys_umount()->...->generic_shutdown_super(), =
if the inode usage count i_count is not 0, error information is =
reported. Then, the system will halt in routine =
kill_bdev()->truncate_inode_pages().
	If we don't fix it in OCFS2 driver, we have to change the kernel 2.6 =
VFS sys_umount code. Is it a good solution?

	Thanks.


*********************************************
Sonic Zhang
Software Engineer
Intel China Software Lab
Tel: (086)021-52574545-1667
iNet: 752-1667
*********************************************=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fasheh [mailto:mark.fasheh at oracle.com]=20
Sent: 2004=C4=EA4=D4=C230=C8=D5 1:32
To: Zhang, Sonic
Cc: Ocfs2-Devel
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] What's your opinion on the patch to fix bug =
58 for kernel 2.6 porting?

Well, to be perfectly honest I don't think this is the right solution.
Instead of peppering the code with signal stuff, why not try to figure =
out
what the timing issue is (it seems that the umount thread should wait on
pending operations) and fix it that way?
	--Mark

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:10:56AM +0800, Zhang, Sonic wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>=20
> 	Do you have any opinion on the patch to fix bug 58 for kernel
> 2.6 porting?
> 	Could you add the patch into the source tree?=20
>=20
> 	Thank you.
>=20
>=20
> *********************************************
> Sonic Zhang
> Software Engineer
> Intel China Software Lab
> Tel: (086)021-52574545-1667
> iNet: 752-1667
> *********************************************=20
>=20


> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
> Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
> http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

--
Mark Fasheh
Software Developer, Oracle Corp
mark.fasheh at oracle.com
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel at oss.oracle.com
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel