From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q6HHRSGY093790 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:27:28 -0500 Message-ID: <5005A079.4010007@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:27:21 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context References: <20120704151328.928543446@bombadil.infradead.org> <20120717071923.GD15473@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Sage Weil Cc: Christoph Hellwig , sage@newdream.net, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 "<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<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