From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5N697mW160536 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:09:08 -0500 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CABD7279E9 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id X8wGSTgln2N06NOW for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:09:00 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: only SetPageUptodate if all buffers are uptodate Message-ID: <20110623060900.GX32466@dastard> References: <20110419114028.7844.10303.stgit@nfs3> <20110420103521.GA20510@infradead.org> <20110420145722.GB29759@sgi.com> <20110420153614.GA11362@infradead.org> <20110623050819.GW32466@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110623050819.GW32466@dastard> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: bpm@sgi.com, aelder@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:08:19PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:36:14AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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? > > I've been running this patch for quite some time, but having just > upgraded to the latest xfstests, this patch is causing fsx failures > in tests 075 091 112 127 and 231 on 3.0-rc4 on x86_64 with default > mkfs and mount parameters. fsx passes again with this patch removed > from my test stack.... Seems I spoke too soon - the fsx failures seems to be intermittent, and it was just chance that my bisect landed on this patch.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs