From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:26:09 -0700 From: Ross Zwisler To: Dave Chinner Cc: Ross Zwisler , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Brian Foster , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: xfstests failures with xfs, dax and v4.4-rc3 Message-ID: <20151211042609.GA5360@linux.intel.com> References: <20151202183438.GA1319@linux.intel.com> <20151202202910.GH19199@dastard> <20151202204502.GI19199@dastard> <20151202213932.GA7652@linux.intel.com> <20151210165458.GA13603@linux.intel.com> <20151210223333.GH26718@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151210223333.GH26718@dastard> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:33:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:54:58AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:39:32PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > I've verified that this fixes all three failing xfstests reported in this mail. > > > Thanks! > > > > Hey Dave, > > > > Are you planning on pushing this fix for v4.4? > > No plans to right now - ENOSPC is a corner case that most users > won't be anywhere near, especially for experimental functionality on > hardware nobody actually has.... Really? I realize that it may be a case that most users won't actually hit, but it is a 5 line change that fixes four xfstests regressions between v4.3 and v4.4 for my DAX testing... Is there a strong reason *not* to push it in the v4.4 cycle? I'm trying to clear up all xfstests differences between DAX and non-DAX, and this would help quite a bit.