xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: ca

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:51:53 -0500
Cc: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100225234553.GC18369@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4B504B03.7050604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B6706CE.1020207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100208194226.GD9527@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B712166.9010701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100209103157.GA5197@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B72A9D1.8030101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100210145508.GA29047@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B72D3F3.2040308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B85703A.60104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100225234553.GC18369@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:45:53AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Good to hear. The fixes are already in 2.6.33 (just released), so
> the question is whether we backport to 2.6.32 or not. Christoph,
> Alex, Eric - should we push these fixes back to .32-stable?

My latests patch to fix the locking for tag manipulations isn't in
any tree yet.   We should get it into mainline and 2.6.33-stable,
and if the previous patches are backported .32-stable as well.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim), Christoph Hellwig <=