From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:23:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [ext4:dev 47/50] fs/ext4/indirect.c:1799 ext4_ind_punch_hole() warn: inconsistent returns mutex:
Message-Id: <20120928142320.GA9473@gmail.com>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20120928060719.GA15218@localhost>
 <20120928132055.GC13352@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120928132055.GC13352@thunk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:20:55AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 02:07:19PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hi Zheng,
> > 
> > FYI, there are new smatch warnings show up in
> > 
> > tree:   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git dev
> > head:   b2f1a8e5612e2488a3995ec06b422b44651d088b
> > commit: 3e1b02687146ddefa8e53c2a5e13d3bd87b16b09 [47/50] ext4: add support for hole punching non-extent-mapped files
> 
> I'm going to be dropping the indirect punch hole patches from the ext4
> dev tree, based on the number of xfstests failures that I found in my
> overnight testing.
> 
> I had hoped the changes were small and localized, and wouldn't cause
> problems if the punch hole feature wasn't used, but at this point,
> given that many distributions are starting to use the ext4 file system
> for legacy ext3 file systems, my judgement is that the risks are too
> great for the upcoming merge window; so this will probably need to
> wait for the next development cycle.

Hi Ted,

These patches would need to do more tests, and I will look at them in
next development cycle.  I am not sure whether indirect punch hole is
really useful for us or not.  What do you think about this feature?
Thanks

Regards,
Zheng