On 04/01/2018 1:07 AM, Michael Lyle wrote: > Hey Coly, > > On 01/03/2018 06:03 AM, Coly Li wrote: > [snip] >> The first 8 patches of this patch set is to fix existing bugs in bcache, >> the last 2 patches do the real improvement. Order of applying these patches >> is important, if the last 2 patches are applied firstly, kernel panic or >> process hang will be observed. Therefore I suggest to apply the first 8 >> fixes, then apply the last 2 patches. > Hi Mike, > Wow, this is a lot of changes. :D Thanks for the fixes. I've skimmed > through these (no real review yet) and overall what you're doing looks > good. I think I'm going to concentrate on the first several patches in > the set for now as a strategy to get at least some of this in for the > first pass of 4.16 and we can figure out what to do from there. > Yes, I am also testing it from my side, and after v2 patches (I will rebase the rested patches agains bcache-for-next) our partners will join the verification too. > We're up to RC6, so it's getting to be time to get things into next, and > pretty soon I need to focus on testing for awhile. > Thanks for doing this. When you test the patch set, please apply them together, because the bugs that the first 8 patches try to fix won't be triggered without applying the last 2 patches, especially the io_disable patch. The io_disable patch fixes dc->count reference issue, then cache_set_flush() can be executed, and the bugs are triggered. > [off-topic, I wasn't able to find the time to go through the lock model > for 4.16 as I had hoped-- hopefully these changes make it to 4.17]. No rush, I am glad to review the patches once they are done. Thanks for your effort, again :-) Coly Li
