Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context

[Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>]

On 07/17/12 10:46, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > ping/  I'd really like to get this queued up for 3.6
> I forget if I mentioned this before, but I pulled this series into our
> testing branch and have had no problems (aside from the last patch not
> applying to my tree) in qa (ceph on xfs) over the last couple of weeks.
>
> sage
Sage,

The patch "5-5-xfs-remove-iolock-lock-classes.patch" does not cleanly
apply because the comment that the patch is trying to remove in
xfs_iget.c has the following character sequence "<D1><95>" that the
mailer converted to a "?". It is easy enough to hand patch:


/*
 * Define xfs inode iolock lockdep classes. We need to ensure that all 
active
 * inodes are considered the same for lockdep purposes, including 
inodes that
 * are recycled through the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state. This is the the 
only way to
 * guarantee the locks are considered the same when there are multiple lock
 * initialisation site<D1><95>. Also, define a reclaimable inode class 
so it is
                      ^^^^^^^^

--Mark Tinguely.