| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc1: known regressions v2 - XFS |
| From: | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 May 2007 16:40:20 -0700 |
| Cc: | Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@xxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070516233419.GP85884050@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <464B6743.9000607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <464B6A2B.9020703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070516233419.GP85884050@xxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) |
David Chinner wrote:
> Jeremy has tentatively indicated that the patch has fixed the problem.
> Have you seen any more problems since applying the patch, Jeremy?
>
No, it continues to seem sound with casual use; I would have expected to
see the problem reoccur by now. I'd like to rerun the full set of tests
I did before to be sure, but so far so good. No other apparent
regressions either.
Also, the match between the observed symptoms and the bugfix is very
good, which adds confidence (ie, no element of "it works now but we
don't know why"). I guess the only remaining concern is whether there
are any other paths which fail to dirty the inode.
Did you manage to repro the problem?
J
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc1: known regressions v2 - XFS, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: 2.6.22-rc1-mm1, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc1: known regressions v2 - XFS, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [2/3] 2.6.22-rc1: known regressions v2 - XFS, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |