[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: only SetPageUptodate if all buffers are uptodate

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: only SetPageUptodate if all buffers are uptodate
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:09:00 +1000
Cc: bpm@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, aelder@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110623050819.GW32466@dastard>
References: <20110419114028.7844.10303.stgit@nfs3> <20110420103521.GA20510@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110420145722.GB29759@xxxxxxx> <20110420153614.GA11362@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110623050819.GW32466@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:08:19PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:36:14AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:57:22AM -0500, bpm@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Wish I did.  The test case that discovered this only applies to CXFS.  I
> > > would have liked to post a test case for XFS but decided that this has
> > > been on my TODO list for too long already.  Looks to me like it has to
> > > be related to the inode size, so you quit probing buffers after the
> > > first.  Maybe some discussion will ring some bells for somebody.
> > 
> > It would be really good to have one, but the actual patch looks good
> > enough that I'd consider putting it in.  I can assumes you ran
> > xfstests with various small blocksize options for both the test
> > and scratch device and it didn't show any regressions?
> I've been running this patch for quite some time, but having just
> upgraded to the latest xfstests, this patch is causing fsx failures
> in tests 075 091 112 127 and 231 on 3.0-rc4 on x86_64 with default
> mkfs and mount parameters. fsx passes again with this patch removed
> from my test stack....

Seems I spoke too soon - the fsx failures seems to be intermittent,
and it was just chance that my bisect landed on this patch....


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>