From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: ext4 extent status tree LRU locking Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:49:31 +0800 Message-ID: <20130618034931.GA10628@gmail.com> References: <51B7B128.60909@intel.com> <20130614140940.GA20401@gmail.com> <20130614140215.GA1017@thunk.org> <20130614170028.GA21544@gmail.com> <20130614180054.GB1017@thunk.org> <20130617101033.GA17828@gmail.com> <51BF7BAA.5030803@intel.com> <20130618022548.GA24671@gmail.com> <20130618025133.GB24479@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Theodore Ts'o , Dave Hansen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Jan kara Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:35457 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752576Ab3FRDbQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:31:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130618025133.GB24479@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:51:34PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:25:48AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention that this patch bases against ext4/master > > branch. Now ext4/dev branch has some regression when I run xfstests. > > What regressions are you seeing? generic/300. When I try to test my patch, I know that there has a report that invalidate page range patch set causes a regression, and I am not sure whether invalidate page range patch set causes it or not. So I decide to generate my patch against ext4/master. So, don't worry. :-) BTW, I will run xfstests this week. If I meet any regression, I will let you know. > > > Ted, I notice that now in ext4 tree we have 'dev', 'dev-with-revert', > > and 'dev2' branches. Which one is the best to generate a new patch for > > the next merge window? > > Either the dev branch or the master branch. > > The dev-with-revert and dev2 were branches that I had created when > investigating a potential regression with the invalidage page range > patch set. I've since determined that it's a timing issue and it's > not a new regression --- we've had xfstests failures with test > generic/300 for a while now. Thanks for pointing it out. - Zheng