xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/9] XFS update for 3.0-stable

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] XFS update for 3.0-stable
From: Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:59:19 -0800
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=iYckDcMG3R0JD8ZjiJSnfgC13uM=; b=uxcC7eoXmQGbl4wh9rmnvR4A2fOn prMHBboj4KKegalD04HI1Ic9Zj8N7zU+6OP4nP1mH9+oz/d0QjfltvJyVBnrX+9G o6bVAO6Rj5jZqsditufS0jc8PkO4Hje0rpLic/1MnHarhPFirysQevxStrQMiiWc RY/Am+WCLAwRMzs=
In-reply-to: <20111119181336.964593075@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20111119181336.964593075@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 01:13:36PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is the series of XFS fixes from current mainline which is important
> enough for 3.0-stable.  All but the first three would also be needed
> for 3.1-stable, but given the limited resources I plan to concentrate
> on 3.0-stable.  If anyone wants to take care for 3.1 by building a kernel
> with the remaining patches and run QA on them you are more welcome to
> help out with that tree.
> 
> Note that while the description of
> 
>         xfs: don't serialise direct IO reads on page cache checks
> 
> doesn't mention that is is a regression fix we later noticed that a
> large part of the speedups wasn't in fact new, but fixed a performance
> regression introduced in Linux 2.6.38 with commit:
> 
>       xfs: introduce xfs_rw_lock() helpers for locking the inode

Thanks for the series of patches, I'll queue them up after this latest
3.0 release happens on Monday.

greg k-h

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