From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:44566 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756669AbbCMTnp (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:43:45 -0400 Received: by padet14 with SMTP id et14so31767705pad.11 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:43:42 -0700 From: Omar Sandoval To: dsterba@suse.cz, Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] btrfs: ENOMEM bugfixes Message-ID: <20150313194342.GA10097@mew.dhcp4.washington.edu> References: <20150312044017.GA7693@mew> <20150313110430.GG20767@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150313110430.GG20767@twin.jikos.cz> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:04:30PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:40:17PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > Ping. For anyone following along, it looks like commit cc87317726f8 > > ("mm: page_alloc: revert inadvertent !__GFP_FS retry behavior change") > > reverted the commit that exposed these bugs. Josef said he was okay with > > taking these, will they make it to an upcoming -rc soon? > > Upcoming yes, but based on my experience with pushing patches that are > not really regressions in late rc's it's unlikely for 4.1. Ok, seeing as these bugs are going to be really hard to trigger now that the old GFP_FS behavior has been restored, I'm fine with waiting for the next merge window. Thank you! -- Omar