xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: di_flushiter considered harmful

To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: di_flushiter considered harmful
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:07:24 -0500
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130723104259.GB360@x4>
References: <1374488304-13044-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130722110732.GA365@x4> <51ED4471.7050708@xxxxxxx> <20130722151542.GB365@x4> <51ED8C73.50306@xxxxxxx> <20130723104259.GB360@x4>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hi Markus,

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:42:59PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2013.07.22 at 14:48 -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> > On 07/22/13 10:15, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2013.07.22 at 09:40 -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> > >> On 07/22/13 06:07, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > >>> On 2013.07.22 at 20:18 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >> It seems to me that since we cannot fix this for inode 1/2, then besides
> > >> this patch we have to revert patch cca9f93a52d and make it inode 3+ /
> > >> superblock 5+ (crc) dependent.
> > >
> > > Which is exactly what the hunk I've posted does.
> > >
> > > Here's the combined patch:
> > 
> > Following Dave's instruction to recreate this problem, your patch works 
> > with an inode 2 and inode 3 (once I remembered to load the module before 
> > recovery). Dave's patch was successful on inode 3 - again after I 
> > remembered to load the module before recovery.
> > 
> > Whomever makes the formal patch, consider it reviewed-by me.
> 
> To get this patch to Linus ASAP, here's the combined patch again. 
> Please apply.
> Thanks.

I'd prefer to have Dave take another look at the combined patch before pulling
this in.  Even so, we shouldn't have any trouble getting this into -rc3.

Thanks,
        Ben

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