| To: | Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Inode lockdep problem observed on 2.6.37.6 xfs with RT subvolume |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:28:23 -0500 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, cernekee@xxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CAC=U0a11udmsGAKg5Sp+X2uxRTKS8gq37CK9OAZKhLOPKbWHKQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CAC=U0a1huHVULfMObyH_XNcQi5aTZtrbpcciNhw=92PE96f4cg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120202091330.GA31203@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAC=U0a11udmsGAKg5Sp+X2uxRTKS8gq37CK9OAZKhLOPKbWHKQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:26:28AM -0500, Kamal Dasu wrote: > > ?xfs: only lock the rt bitmap inode once per allocation > > ?xfs: fix xfs_get_extsz_hint for a zero extent size hint > > ?xfs: add lockdep annotations for the rt inodes > > > > But in general the RT subvolume code is not regularly tested and only > > fixed when issues arise. > > > Thanks for quick reply and clarifying this, if upgrading the kernel is > not an option, should I be > considering backporting changes to 2.6.37, should I use the entire > 2.6.39 or 3.0 > xfs implementation as is of cherry pick the above three changes ?. I don't remember if we have other changes in that area. If backporting the changes is easy enough, go for it, if not stick to your original workaround. Either way make sure you don't introduce other regressions by running xfstests. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Inode lockdep problem observed on 2.6.37.6 xfs with RT subvolume, Kamal Dasu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: honor the O_SYNC flag for aysnchronous direct I/O requests, Jan Kara |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Inode lockdep problem observed on 2.6.37.6 xfs with RT subvolume, Kamal Dasu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Inode lockdep problem observed on 2.6.37.6 xfs with RT subvolume, kdasu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |