On Tue, Sep 22 2009 at 1:00pm -0400, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22 2009 at 12:37pm -0400, > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I got this BUG when attempting to use merged patchset of Mike's and Jon's > > patches (from > > http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/snapshot-merge/kernel_unified/2.6.31/) > > > > I think we shouldn't join these two patchsets together. I mean, before > > clustered patches, merging was stable (I reviewed and tested it and except > > for one userspace bug (already fixed) there were no flaws) ... now it > > doesn't work. > > > > I would recommend to leave merging as it was (i.e. stable, apply only > > little patches on it) and develop Jon's clustering on the top of merging > > and not interleave it with merging, so that the clustering patches could > > be rolled back if problems were found. When clustering will be stable and > > reviewed, it could be added to the kernel --- but it may happen later than > > merging, so don't mix it. > > > When did you pull in the patches on my people page? > > As of yesterday evening (Boston) I uploaded patches that are broken > (based on Jon's reworked handover). I'm now combining your handover > with Jon's handover (in hopes of avoiding refactoring associations). > > The patches are in flux... I'm working to resolve the issues that are > rooted at the handover mechanism. > > As for patch ordering. I'm not opposed to what you suggested (merge > first then clusterized). But that is a secondary concern right now. We > have enough time between now and the next merge window to get them both > working. Mikulas, I've fixed the handover mechanism. It now reflects the combination of both your handover and Jon's (whereby avoiding refactoring associations in dm_exception_store and dm_snapshot). I've uploaded the updated quilt series to the usual place: http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/snapshot-merge/kernel_unified/2.6.31/ I not sure which BUG() you hit in dm-snap-persistent.c (because my line numbers have changed).. but given that it was in merge_callback() I'd imagine it is the BUG_ON() that Jon added to clear_exception(). That BUG_ON() is actually useful. If you can reproduce it with these updated patches it bears further investigation. In general, I think snapshot-merge is stronger for having combined with Jon's clusterized patches. I actually prefer the final result more so than if the merge patches were to try to stand on their own (Jon's refactoring of the exception-store et al has had a positive side-effect on snapshot-merge). Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
