From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403E28070 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:32:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:32:05 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] fix spinlock recursion on xa_lock in xfs_buf_item_push Message-ID: <20130214233205.GL22182@sgi.com> References: <1360595302-15865-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1360595302-15865-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:08:20AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is v4 of the spinlock recursion fix. The only update is to the comment in > patch 1. These changes have been run through the reproducer over the weekend > without a failure. > > I've also run another xfstests run while including the following patch from Dave: > > xfs: xfs_bmap_add_attrfork_local is too generic > > ... due to seeing the same issue Lukas reproduced in test 013 (I saw it in 070 as > well). That problem no longer occurs with this patch included, but I have hit > an error in test 178 that didn't fire in my baseline run. It persists if I revert > back to TOT, so I'm posting this set as is and I'll see if I can trace where that > one came from... Applied these two. Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs