On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 05:11:30PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 01:04:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > The fact is, I think xfs is just buggy. Returning 38 (ENOSYS) is
> > totally insane. "No such system call"? Somebody is on some bad bad
> > drugs. Not that the mount_block_root() loop and error handling might
> > not be a good thing to perhaps tweak _too_, but at the very least your
> > patch means that now it no longer prints out the error number at all.
>
> There's only a single instance of ENOSYS in fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c:
>
> /*
> * We must be able to do sector-sized and sector-aligned IO.
> */
> if (sector_size > sbp->sb_sectsize) {
> if (loud)
> xfs_warn(mp, "device supports %u byte sectors (not %u)",
> sector_size, sbp->sb_sectsize);
> error = ENOSYS;
> goto release_buf;
> }
>
> Plamen, does changing the ENOSYS to EINVAL above fix things for you?
>
> > Anyway, I'm also not seeing why that xfs error would be new to 3.14,
> > though.. Adding the XFS people to the cc.
>
> If I had to guess, commit daba5427d is new to 3.14, and it might
> explain the change in behavior.
Yup, it's buggy, though not in an obvious way. I'll have a patch for
it soon.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
