From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:35:39 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jens Axboe Cc: Bart Van Assche , Linus Torvalds , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1 Message-ID: <20170220073539.GA17687@lst.de> References: <1D08B61A9CF0974AA09887BE32D889DA0A74F3@ULS-OP-MBXIP03.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com> <633d226d-cec3-a01f-a069-ffff307e9715@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <633d226d-cec3-a01f-a069-ffff307e9715@kernel.dk> List-ID: On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 06:15:41PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > I don't think that's a regression in this series, it just triggers more easily > with this series. The BLOCK_PC removal fixes aren't touching device life times > at all. Yes. > That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christoph, any idea? No idea really - this seems so far away from the code touched, and there are no obvious signs for a memory scamble from another object touched that I think if it really bisects down to that issue it must be a timing issue. But reading Bart's message again: Did you actually bisect it down to the is commit? Or just test the whole tree? Between the 4.10-rc5 merge and all the block tree there might a few more likely suspects like the scsi bdi lifetime fixes that James mentioned.