| To: | bpm@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: only SetPageUptodate if all buffers are uptodate |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:36:14 -0400 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, aelder@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20110420145722.GB29759@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20110419114028.7844.10303.stgit@nfs3> <20110420103521.GA20510@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110420145722.GB29759@xxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
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? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Files full of zeros with coreutils-8.11 and xfs (FIEMAP related?), Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests 252: add test for fallocate with hole punching, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: only SetPageUptodate if all buffers are uptodate, bpm |
| Next by Thread: | [ANNOUNCE] attr: 2.4.46 release, Brandon Philips |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |