Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4 | From | Artem Bityutskiy <> | Date | Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:56:25 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 09:35 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > Just as a quick FYI, I tried applying your patch series on top of my > development tree, and ran into problems when I ran the regression test > (using xfstests). When I backed out your changes and reran, the tests > completed without any problems.
Thanks Ted, I'll take a look at xfstests and run them next time before sending out v2.
> I'm rerunning the tests since the first failure looks like it might > not be related to your patch series (and yet it went away once I > backed out your patch). The second failure however looks definitely > related to your changes. It looks like you don't wait to make sure > the workqueue is flushed out before the file system gets unmounted, > and that can lead to a panic.
Hmm, I thought the whole DIO workqueue would be flushed so I do not have to do anything. I'll take a look.
> Since we're already in the 3.3 has already been released, I suspect > this patch series will probably need to wait until the next merge > window. We might be able to pull in some of the obviously safe > patches, however.
Sure, that's fine.
But I wonder, since this is cross-FS story, where I need to first do small VFS change (export the variable), then change all file-systems, and then remove whole 's_dirt'/'write_supers()' stuff from VFS, how this would be handled?
IMO, the best way would be to make everything go in via one single tree, granted I could get all the acks, do you feel like ext4 tree could be the one?
Also, I am working on top of vanilla 3.3, do you prefer me to work with your tree instead? I guess this tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git
but which branch?
-- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |