From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p3KFWlRM101734 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:32:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:36:14 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: only SetPageUptodate if all buffers are uptodate Message-ID: <20110420153614.GA11362@infradead.org> References: <20110419114028.7844.10303.stgit@nfs3> <20110420103521.GA20510@infradead.org> <20110420145722.GB29759@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110420145722.GB29759@sgi.com> 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: bpm@sgi.com Cc: aelder@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:57:22AM -0500, bpm@sgi.com wrote: > Wish I did. The test case that discovered this only applies to CXFS. I > would have liked to post a test case for XFS but decided that this has > been on my TODO list for too long already. Looks to me like it has to > be related to the inode size, so you quit probing buffers after the > first. Maybe some discussion will ring some bells for somebody. It would be really good to have one, but the actual patch looks good enough that I'd consider putting it in. I can assumes you ran xfstests with various small blocksize options for both the test and scratch device and it didn't show any regressions? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs