* Re: direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 9:37 ` direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO() Boaz Harrosh
@ 2014-07-17 9:40 ` Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-17 9:54 ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-17 9:48 ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-17 11:11 ` [PATCH v2] " Boaz Harrosh
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Boaz Harrosh @ 2014-07-17 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Bolle, Christoph Hellwig, viro
Cc: Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg, pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper,
Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
On 07/17/2014 12:37 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
>
> The following warnings:
>
> fs/direct-io.c: In function ‘__blockdev_direct_IO’:
> fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘to’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> fs/direct-io.c:913:16: note: ‘to’ was declared here
> fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘from’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> fs/direct-io.c:913:10: note: ‘from’ was declared here
>
> are false positive because dio_get_page() either fails, or sets both
> 'from' and 'to'.
>
> Maybe it's better to move initializing "to" and "from" out of
> dio_get_page(). That _might_ make it easier for both the the reader and
> the compiler to understand what's going on. Something like this:
>
> Christoph Hellwig said ...
> The fix of moving the code defintively looks nicer, while I think
> uninitialized_var is horrible wart that won't get anywhere near my code.
>
> Boaz Harrosh I agree with Christoph and Paul
>
So Here, everyone likes this one (I think) please ACK/Review and let us merge
it.
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Paul this is your patch I put you as Signed-off-by please acknowledge
> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
Thanks
Boaz
> ---
> fs/direct-io.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
> index 98040ba..2f024fc 100644
> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
> @@ -198,9 +198,8 @@ static inline int dio_refill_pages(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
> * L1 cache.
> */
> static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
> - struct dio_submit *sdio, size_t *from, size_t *to)
> + struct dio_submit *sdio)
> {
> - int n;
> if (dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0) {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -209,10 +208,7 @@ static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> BUG_ON(dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0);
> }
> - n = sdio->head++;
> - *from = n ? 0 : sdio->from;
> - *to = (n == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
> - return dio->pages[n];
> + return dio->pages[sdio->head];
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -911,11 +907,15 @@ static int do_direct_IO(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
> while (sdio->block_in_file < sdio->final_block_in_request) {
> struct page *page;
> size_t from, to;
> - page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio, &from, &to);
> +
> + page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio);
> if (IS_ERR(page)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(page);
> goto out;
> }
> + from = sdio->head ? 0 : sdio->from;
> + to = (sdio->head == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
> + sdio->head++;
>
> while (from < to) {
> unsigned this_chunk_bytes; /* # of bytes mapped */
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 9:40 ` Boaz Harrosh
@ 2014-07-17 9:54 ` Paul Bolle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Bolle @ 2014-07-17 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boaz Harrosh
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, viro, Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg,
pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kernel
Boaz,
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 12:40 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
>
> Paul this is your patch I put you as Signed-off-by please acknowledge
I never signed off on that patch! Speaking from memory, I just sent a
message stating that "something like this" might silence the warning. I
also stated that I needed to have another look at it.
This touches code I did not write and do not yet understand well enough.
Getting there requires a clean schedule, clean head, and/or a clean
desk. I certainly won't sign off on it until one or more of those
conditions are met.
Please don't do this (adding a Signed-off-by on a patch I drafted)
again!
Paul Bolle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 9:37 ` direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO() Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-17 9:40 ` Boaz Harrosh
@ 2014-07-17 9:48 ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-17 11:00 ` Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-17 11:11 ` [PATCH v2] " Boaz Harrosh
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Bolle @ 2014-07-17 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boaz Harrosh
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, viro, Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg,
pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kernel
Boaz,
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 12:37 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
>
> The following warnings:
>
> fs/direct-io.c: In function ‘__blockdev_direct_IO’:
> fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘to’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> fs/direct-io.c:913:16: note: ‘to’ was declared here
> fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘from’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> fs/direct-io.c:913:10: note: ‘from’ was declared here
>
> are false positive because dio_get_page() either fails, or sets both
> 'from' and 'to'.
>
> Maybe it's better to move initializing "to" and "from" out of
> dio_get_page(). That _might_ make it easier for both the the reader and
> the compiler to understand what's going on. Something like this:
>
> Christoph Hellwig said ...
> The fix of moving the code defintively looks nicer, while I think
> uninitialized_var is horrible wart that won't get anywhere near my code.
>
> Boaz Harrosh I agree with Christoph and Paul
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
This is simply not coorect!
> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
> ---
> fs/direct-io.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
> index 98040ba..2f024fc 100644
> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
> @@ -198,9 +198,8 @@ static inline int dio_refill_pages(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
> * L1 cache.
> */
> static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
> - struct dio_submit *sdio, size_t *from, size_t *to)
> + struct dio_submit *sdio)
> {
> - int n;
> if (dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0) {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -209,10 +208,7 @@ static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> BUG_ON(dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0);
> }
> - n = sdio->head++;
> - *from = n ? 0 : sdio->from;
> - *to = (n == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
> - return dio->pages[n];
> + return dio->pages[sdio->head];
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -911,11 +907,15 @@ static int do_direct_IO(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
> while (sdio->block_in_file < sdio->final_block_in_request) {
> struct page *page;
> size_t from, to;
> - page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio, &from, &to);
> +
> + page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio);
> if (IS_ERR(page)) {
> ret = PTR_ERR(page);
> goto out;
> }
> + from = sdio->head ? 0 : sdio->from;
> + to = (sdio->head == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
> + sdio->head++;
>
> while (from < to) {
> unsigned this_chunk_bytes; /* # of bytes mapped */
Paul Bolle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 9:48 ` Paul Bolle
@ 2014-07-17 11:00 ` Boaz Harrosh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Boaz Harrosh @ 2014-07-17 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Bolle
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, viro, Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg,
pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kernel
On 07/17/2014 12:48 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Boaz,
>
> On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 12:37 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
>>
>> The following warnings:
>>
>> fs/direct-io.c: In function ‘__blockdev_direct_IO’:
>> fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘to’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> fs/direct-io.c:913:16: note: ‘to’ was declared here
>> fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘from’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> fs/direct-io.c:913:10: note: ‘from’ was declared here
>>
>> are false positive because dio_get_page() either fails, or sets both
>> 'from' and 'to'.
>>
>> Maybe it's better to move initializing "to" and "from" out of
>> dio_get_page(). That _might_ make it easier for both the the reader and
>> the compiler to understand what's going on. Something like this:
>>
>> Christoph Hellwig said ...
>> The fix of moving the code defintively looks nicer, while I think
>> uninitialized_var is horrible wart that won't get anywhere near my code.
>>
>> Boaz Harrosh I agree with Christoph and Paul
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
>
> This is simply not coorect!
Sorry you are absolutely right, I only saw this after "send", is why
I ping you to make sure.
I have reviewed it fully, your initial code is correct *and tested).
Here is a new V2 patch without your sign-off
Thanks
Boaz
>
>> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
>> ---
>> fs/direct-io.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
>> index 98040ba..2f024fc 100644
>> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
>> @@ -198,9 +198,8 @@ static inline int dio_refill_pages(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
>> * L1 cache.
>> */
>> static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
>> - struct dio_submit *sdio, size_t *from, size_t *to)
>> + struct dio_submit *sdio)
>> {
>> - int n;
>> if (dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0) {
>> int ret;
>>
>> @@ -209,10 +208,7 @@ static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
>> return ERR_PTR(ret);
>> BUG_ON(dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0);
>> }
>> - n = sdio->head++;
>> - *from = n ? 0 : sdio->from;
>> - *to = (n == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
>> - return dio->pages[n];
>> + return dio->pages[sdio->head];
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -911,11 +907,15 @@ static int do_direct_IO(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
>> while (sdio->block_in_file < sdio->final_block_in_request) {
>> struct page *page;
>> size_t from, to;
>> - page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio, &from, &to);
>> +
>> + page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio);
>> if (IS_ERR(page)) {
>> ret = PTR_ERR(page);
>> goto out;
>> }
>> + from = sdio->head ? 0 : sdio->from;
>> + to = (sdio->head == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
>> + sdio->head++;
>>
>> while (from < to) {
>> unsigned this_chunk_bytes; /* # of bytes mapped */
>
>
> Paul Bolle
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 9:37 ` direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO() Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-17 9:40 ` Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-17 9:48 ` Paul Bolle
@ 2014-07-17 11:11 ` Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-17 11:29 ` Paul Bolle
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Boaz Harrosh @ 2014-07-17 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Bolle, Christoph Hellwig, viro
Cc: Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg, pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper,
Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
The following warnings:
fs/direct-io.c: In function ‘__blockdev_direct_IO’:
fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘to’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
fs/direct-io.c:913:16: note: ‘to’ was declared here
fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘from’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
fs/direct-io.c:913:10: note: ‘from’ was declared here
are false positive because dio_get_page() either fails, or sets both
'from' and 'to'.
Maybe it's better to move initializing "to" and "from" out of
dio_get_page(). That _might_ make it easier for both the the reader and
the compiler to understand what's going on. Something like this:
Christoph Hellwig said ...
The fix of moving the code definitively looks nicer, while I think
uninitialized_var is horrible wart that won't get anywhere near my code.
Boaz Harrosh: I agree with Christoph and Paul
Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
---
fs/direct-io.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
index 98040ba..194d0d1 100644
--- a/fs/direct-io.c
+++ b/fs/direct-io.c
@@ -198,9 +198,8 @@ static inline int dio_refill_pages(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
* L1 cache.
*/
static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
- struct dio_submit *sdio, size_t *from, size_t *to)
+ struct dio_submit *sdio)
{
- int n;
if (dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0) {
int ret;
@@ -209,10 +208,7 @@ static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
return ERR_PTR(ret);
BUG_ON(dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0);
}
- n = sdio->head++;
- *from = n ? 0 : sdio->from;
- *to = (n == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
- return dio->pages[n];
+ return dio->pages[sdio->head];
}
/**
@@ -911,11 +907,15 @@ static int do_direct_IO(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
while (sdio->block_in_file < sdio->final_block_in_request) {
struct page *page;
size_t from, to;
- page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio, &from, &to);
+
+ page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio);
if (IS_ERR(page)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(page);
goto out;
}
+ from = sdio->head ? 0 : sdio->from;
+ to = (sdio->head == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
+ sdio->head++;
while (from < to) {
unsigned this_chunk_bytes; /* # of bytes mapped */
--
1.9.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2] direct-io: squelch maybe-uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 11:11 ` [PATCH v2] " Boaz Harrosh
@ 2014-07-17 11:29 ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-20 9:09 ` [PATCH v3] direct-io: fix uninitialized " Boaz Harrosh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Bolle @ 2014-07-17 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boaz Harrosh
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, viro, Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg,
pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kernel
Boaz Harrosh schreef op do 17-07-2014 om 14:11 [+0300]:
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Thanks for dropping my Signed-off-by tag.
Would you mind also dropping the From: line? I prefer you to also be
author of this patch.
Note that I'm pretty sure I can't claim copyright on the three chunks of
changes to the code nor on the few lines you copied into the commit
explanation. Besides, I'm perfectly OK with you using them in your patch
(especially since you've done review etc.).
Paul Bolle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] direct-io: fix uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-17 11:29 ` Paul Bolle
@ 2014-07-20 9:09 ` Boaz Harrosh
2014-07-21 11:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Boaz Harrosh @ 2014-07-20 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Bolle, Al Viro
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg,
pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kernel
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
The following warnings:
fs/direct-io.c: In function ‘__blockdev_direct_IO’:
fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘to’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
fs/direct-io.c:913:16: note: ‘to’ was declared here
fs/direct-io.c:1011:12: warning: ‘from’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
fs/direct-io.c:913:10: note: ‘from’ was declared here
are false positive because dio_get_page() either fails, or sets both
'from' and 'to'.
Paul Bolle said ...
Maybe it's better to move initializing "to" and "from" out of
dio_get_page(). That _might_ make it easier for both the the reader and
the compiler to understand what's going on. Something like this:
Christoph Hellwig said ...
The fix of moving the code definitively looks nicer, while I think
uninitialized_var is horrible wart that won't get anywhere near my code.
Boaz Harrosh: I agree with Christoph and Paul
Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>
---
fs/direct-io.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
index 98040ba..194d0d1 100644
--- a/fs/direct-io.c
+++ b/fs/direct-io.c
@@ -198,9 +198,8 @@ static inline int dio_refill_pages(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
* L1 cache.
*/
static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
- struct dio_submit *sdio, size_t *from, size_t *to)
+ struct dio_submit *sdio)
{
- int n;
if (dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0) {
int ret;
@@ -209,10 +208,7 @@ static inline struct page *dio_get_page(struct dio *dio,
return ERR_PTR(ret);
BUG_ON(dio_pages_present(sdio) == 0);
}
- n = sdio->head++;
- *from = n ? 0 : sdio->from;
- *to = (n == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
- return dio->pages[n];
+ return dio->pages[sdio->head];
}
/**
@@ -911,11 +907,15 @@ static int do_direct_IO(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
while (sdio->block_in_file < sdio->final_block_in_request) {
struct page *page;
size_t from, to;
- page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio, &from, &to);
+
+ page = dio_get_page(dio, sdio);
if (IS_ERR(page)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(page);
goto out;
}
+ from = sdio->head ? 0 : sdio->from;
+ to = (sdio->head == sdio->tail - 1) ? sdio->to : PAGE_SIZE;
+ sdio->head++;
while (from < to) {
unsigned this_chunk_bytes; /* # of bytes mapped */
--
1.9.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] direct-io: fix uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-20 9:09 ` [PATCH v3] direct-io: fix uninitialized " Boaz Harrosh
@ 2014-07-21 11:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-07-22 9:03 ` Boaz Harrosh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2014-07-21 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boaz Harrosh
Cc: Paul Bolle, Al Viro, Christoph Hellwig, Borislav Petkov,
Sam Ravnborg, pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer,
linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
While it looks obvious, did you make sure it passes xfstests, which
has a lot of direct I/O tests?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] direct-io: fix uninitialized warning in do_direct_IO()
2014-07-21 11:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2014-07-22 9:03 ` Boaz Harrosh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Boaz Harrosh @ 2014-07-22 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig, Boaz Harrosh
Cc: Paul Bolle, Al Viro, Borislav Petkov, Sam Ravnborg,
pramod.gurav.etc, Jason Cooper, Markus Mayer, linux-fsdevel,
linux-kernel
On 07/21/2014 02:36 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looks good to me,
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> While it looks obvious, did you make sure it passes xfstests, which
> has a lot of direct I/O tests?
>
Thank you Christoph. OK So finally I did last night. I ran
ext4. Just that I'm not used to run ext4 or any of those
stuff so it took me time. I have the usual 2 failures I get
also from 3.15. So I'd say its good - tested
Thanks
Boaz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread