From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946D929DFB for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:03:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5224C4E9.8080604@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 12:03:37 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix some new memory allocation failures References: <1378119180-31380-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> In-Reply-To: <1378119180-31380-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 09/02/13 05:52, Dave Chinner wrote: > Hi folks, > > These failures are a result of order-4 allocations being done on v5 > filesystems to support the large ACL count xattrs. The first patch > puts out usual falbback to vmalloc workaround in place. The second > patch factors all the places we now have this fallback-to-vmalloc > and makes it transparent to the callers. > > Cheers, > > Dave. Thanks for clean up. Broken record time: Do we really need order allocation in the filesystem? Esp in xfs_ioctl.c. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs