From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: ext4 xfstest regression due to ext4_es_lookup_extent Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:14:47 -0500 Message-ID: <20130224001447.GB1196@thunk.org> References: <87obfcs1x6.fsf@openvz.org> <20130222180325.GB21264@thunk.org> <87txp3cqwt.fsf@openvz.org> <51289343.90704@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dmitry Monakhov , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Zheng Liu Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:49608 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758190Ab3BXAOw (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:14:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51289343.90704@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 06:00:35PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > Actually I think that the regression in 269'th you have found recently > > caused by similar issue and commit which you foud by bisecting ( the one > > which allow migration between indirect<->extent based inodes) > > simply helps to spot real issue in es_caching code. > > I will revise this patch. IIRC, we forgot to update status tree after > an inode is migrated from extent-based to indirect-based. Thanks for > pointing out. Can you do this as a new commit? I've already bumped the master pointer up since I finished running xfstests and I'm seeing no regressions (at least with my set of xfstests). So given that everything has been tested and things looks pretty stable, I pushed up the master branch. I did remember that you were still working on this regression, but since we're already half-way through the merge window, I really want to make things are ready for a merge request to Linus. (Which I probably will be sending to Linus by Monday or Tuesday.) I do plan to collect bug fixes and any remaining regression fixes to push to Linus by -rc2 or -rc3, so if don't rush fixing up defrag functionality. Thanks!! - Ted