----- "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> any chance we could get you to resubmit the minimal locking fix for
Okay, done. If people still see problems then we should take the
rest of the patch too (of course I would suggest taking it anyway
but it needs more soak testing).
> We can play with the test program than to find some cause the other
I suggest increasing or decreasing the -l argument until you can
reproduce the problem. Timing it so that the file's data is being
flushed to disk (and therefore delayed allocations being converted
and extents merged) at the same time the file is closed (ie the
fput() is done) can be tricky.
It may be easier to reproduce if another program, running concurrently
to the test program, is simply opening and close the file repeatedly.
> corruptions. We also still have that non-freed attr fork patch that
> somewhat related which we still need get done :P
> xfs mailing list