On 5/5/23 4:49 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
On Fri, 2023-05-05 at 08:44 +0100, Andrew Price wrote:
This patch makes gfs2_dinode_dealloc ignore the bad return code and
proceed with freeing the dinode so the QE tests will not be tripped
up.
Is it really ok to ignore all potential errors here? I
Hi Andy,
On 5/5/23 3:44 AM, Andrew Price wrote:
Hi Bob,
On 04/05/2023 18:43, Bob Peterson wrote:
Before this patch function gfs2_dinode_dealloc would abort if it got a
bad return code from gfs2_rindex_update. The problem is that it left the
dinode in the unlinked (not free) state, which meant
On Fri, 2023-05-05 at 08:44 +0100, Andrew Price wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On 04/05/2023 18:43, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > Before this patch function gfs2_dinode_dealloc would abort if it
> > got a
> > bad return code from gfs2_rindex_update. The problem is that it
> > left the
> > dinode in the unlinked
Hi Bob,
On 04/05/2023 18:43, Bob Peterson wrote:
Before this patch function gfs2_dinode_dealloc would abort if it got a
bad return code from gfs2_rindex_update. The problem is that it left the
dinode in the unlinked (not free) state, which meant subsequent fsck
would clean it up and flag an
Before this patch function gfs2_dinode_dealloc would abort if it got a
bad return code from gfs2_rindex_update. The problem is that it left the
dinode in the unlinked (not free) state, which meant subsequent fsck
would clean it up and flag an error. That meant some of our QE tests
would fail.
The
