From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
To: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
sage@newdream.net, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:27:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5005A079.4010007@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207170845060.30672@cobra.newdream.net>
On 07/17/12 10:46, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> ping/ I'd really like to get this queued up for 3.6
>
> I forget if I mentioned this before, but I pulled this series into our
> testing branch and have had no problems (aside from the last patch not
> applying to my tree) in qa (ceph on xfs) over the last couple of weeks.
>
> sage
Sage,
The patch "5-5-xfs-remove-iolock-lock-classes.patch" does not cleanly
apply because the comment that the patch is trying to remove in
xfs_iget.c has the following character sequence "<D1><95>" that the
mailer converted to a "?". It is easy enough to hand patch:
/*
* Define xfs inode iolock lockdep classes. We need to ensure that all
active
* inodes are considered the same for lockdep purposes, including
inodes that
* are recycled through the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state. This is the the
only way to
* guarantee the locks are considered the same when there are multiple lock
* initialisation site<D1><95>. Also, define a reclaimable inode class
so it is
^^^^^^^^
--Mark Tinguely.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-17 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-04 15:13 [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-04 15:13 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: clean up xfs_inactive Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 15:30 ` Rich Johnston
2012-07-04 15:13 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: remove xfs_inactive_attrs Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 15:31 ` Rich Johnston
2012-07-04 15:13 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: do not take the iolock in xfs_inactive Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 15:31 ` Rich Johnston
2012-07-04 15:13 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: avoid the iolock in xfs_free_eofblocks for evicted inodes Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 15:31 ` Rich Johnston
2012-07-04 15:13 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: remove iolock lock classes Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-26 15:31 ` Rich Johnston
2012-07-06 0:05 ` [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context Sage Weil
[not found] ` <20120717071923.GD15473@infradead.org>
2012-07-17 15:46 ` Sage Weil
2012-07-17 17:27 ` Mark Tinguely [this message]
2012-07-26 15:30 ` Rich Johnston
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=5005A079.4010007@sgi.com \
--to=tinguely@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=sage@inktank.com \
--cc=sage@newdream.net \
--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