From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n6UJ2P4m095507 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:02:27 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CE58F10ECDFF for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Ss79o9fpBKMzVXtw for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:03:12 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] fixes for memory allocator recursions into the filesystem Message-ID: <20090730190312.GA19593@infradead.org> References: <20090718221452.594956000@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Sage Weil Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:56:58AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > I just noticed another warning (the same as the second one I sent > before) with your patchset applied to 2.6.30. This is the unresolved > iolock issue you mentioned? Just FYI. Yes, that's the iolock one. Patch will follow soon. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs