Hi,
On 14/12/2020 14:02, Bob Peterson wrote:
Hi,
----- Original Message -----
+ ret = __gfs2_trans_begin(sdp, 0, revokes, GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL);
The addition of __GFP_NOFAIL means that this operation can now block.
Looking at the code, I don't think it will be a problem because it can
already block in the log_flush operations that precede it, but it
makes me nervous. Obviously, we need to test this really well.
Bob
Not sure of the context here exactly, but why are we adding an instance
of __GFP_NOFAIL? There is already a return code there so that we can
fail in that case if required,
Steve.
