From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: block allocations for the refcount btree
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 01:59:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160302095932.GA9141@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160302052411.GB1902@birch.djwong.org>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:24:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> I've rebased my trees and pushed them all to github.
>
> The for-dave-for-4.6 kernel and progs branches are the giant piles of patches
> against Dave's for-next integration trees which (I think) are being reviewed
> for 4.6.
>
> The for-dave branches are against upstream as they've always been.
BTW, what's the point of for-dave vs for-dave-for-4.6 for xfsprogs?
> New patches have been added on the end of the patchset.
>
> I noticed that generic/139 crashes for-dave with a 1k block size due something
> or other sending us bio->bi_bdev == NULL. This seems to be sorted out somehow
> in for-next. Other than that I haven't seen any problems... but I've only
> run against x64 on bare XFS. Will run other arches/NFS/etc tonight/tomorrow.
>
> The transaction block reservation complaints should be fixed now, and I
> think the transaction reservations have been fixed too... or at least they
> don't show up on the tinydisk test setup. But all that means is that someone
> else will find it, probably within the first 3 minutes of testing. :P
Passes on NFS without hitting the space reservation issue, and passes
on XFS without new regression. The odd transaction (not space)
reservation assert in xfs/140 that I started to myesteriously 100%
reproduce last week still is around on XFS. I'll see if I can fix that
or at least triage it further..
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-02 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-10 9:30 block allocations for the refcount btree Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-10 9:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-02-10 19:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-10 21:40 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-11 14:09 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-11 20:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-12 19:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-13 2:33 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-13 4:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-02-13 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-13 7:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-14 0:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-01 18:18 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-01 20:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-02 5:24 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-02 9:59 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2016-03-02 16:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-02 16:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-02 21:21 ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-03-03 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-04 1:36 ` Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160302095932.GA9141@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox