From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751252Ab1LIQiQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:38:16 -0500 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:38072 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780Ab1LIQiO (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: <4EE23967.9080404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:37:59 -0700 From: Allison Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yongqiang Yang CC: Andy Whitcroft , Hugh Dickins , "Ted Ts'o" , Curt Wohlgemuth , Surbhi Palande , Rafael Wysocki , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bug with "fix partial page writes" [3.2-rc regression] References: <4EDD729E.2060402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EDE85F4.4020503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EDF9CAB.3050502@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EE046C7.9030902@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111208181235.GE2686@shadowen.org> <20111209133343.GA434@shadowen.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 11120916-1976-0000-0000-0000086BA131 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/09/2011 06:44 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:12:35PM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:39:55AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>>>> [PATCH 1/2] ext4: let mpage_submit_io works well when blocksize< pagesize >>>>> [PATCH 2/2] ext4: let ext4_discard_partial_buffers handle pages without >>>>> >>>>> [PATCH 1/2] ext4: remove a wrong BUG_ON in ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized >>>>> [PATCH 2/2] ext4: let ext4_bio_write_page handle EOF correctly >>> [...] >>>> Only once, before the fixes, did I ever see an unexplained EINVAL >>>> (from cp), like Andy reports: I'm very hopeful his case is fixed too. >>> >>> Yes I have reverted my fix and applied all four of these patches (above). >>> I have just completed a 100 iteration run of my test case without failure. >>> This would typically fail in the first iteration 90% of the time and >>> never survived more than two iterations. >>> >>> I am comfortable saying they resolve my issue. >> >> Are we likely to see these fixes in a 3.2-rcN or will they be going to >> stable? > All patches will go to 3.2-rcN and the later 2 patches would go to > stable too, I think. > > Yongqiang. Sounds good, its lasted 24hrs now for me so I think it's safe to stop it. Thx! Allison Henderson >> >> -apw > > >