From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: block allocations for the refcount btree
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 01:59:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160302095932.GA9141@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160302052411.GB1902@birch.djwong.org>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:24:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> I've rebased my trees and pushed them all to github.
>
> The for-dave-for-4.6 kernel and progs branches are the giant piles of patches
> against Dave's for-next integration trees which (I think) are being reviewed
> for 4.6.
>
> The for-dave branches are against upstream as they've always been.
BTW, what's the point of for-dave vs for-dave-for-4.6 for xfsprogs?
> New patches have been added on the end of the patchset.
>
> I noticed that generic/139 crashes for-dave with a 1k block size due something
> or other sending us bio->bi_bdev == NULL. This seems to be sorted out somehow
> in for-next. Other than that I haven't seen any problems... but I've only
> run against x64 on bare XFS. Will run other arches/NFS/etc tonight/tomorrow.
>
> The transaction block reservation complaints should be fixed now, and I
> think the transaction reservations have been fixed too... or at least they
> don't show up on the tinydisk test setup. But all that means is that someone
> else will find it, probably within the first 3 minutes of testing. :P
Passes on NFS without hitting the space reservation issue, and passes
on XFS without new regression. The odd transaction (not space)
reservation assert in xfs/140 that I started to myesteriously 100%
reproduce last week still is around on XFS. I'll see if I can fix that
or at least triage it further..
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-02 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-10 9:30 block allocations for the refcount btree Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-10 9:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-02-10 19:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-10 21:40 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-11 14:09 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-11 20:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-12 19:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-13 2:33 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-13 4:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-02-13 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-13 7:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-14 0:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-01 18:18 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-01 20:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-02 5:24 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-02 9:59 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2016-03-02 16:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-02 16:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-02 21:21 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-03 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-04 1:36 ` Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160302095932.GA9141@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.