On Tue, Dec 18, 21:30, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Understood. Personally, I only care about 3.4 as this is the kernel we
> > are running on most of our production systems. Would you be willing
> > to submit the patch also for 3.4-stable if Matthias or myself
> > reproduced the issue on 3.4 and confirmed that the patch fixes the
> > problem there as well?
> We had some trouble getting particular area of code settled down over the
> course of a few releases. Unfortunately we had some crashes on unmount during
> that time which were not immediately reproduceable and that adds another
> wrinkle to this.
> Looks to me like 3.4 doesn't have the problem that Dave is trying to address
> here because it doesn't check for MS_ACTIVE in xfs_sync_worker. You're
> good to go.
Excellent! Thanks a bunch for looking into this.
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Description: Digital signature