On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:01:18AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:26:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:53:56 +1100 > > Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:10:28PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Well, for now, the easiest and simplest fix is my patch, I think. The > > > objection is that we may not write out anything for the specified sb, > > > but the current implementation provides no such guarantees at all > > > anyway, so I don't think it's a big issue. > > > > Well yes. We take something which will fail occasionally and with your > > patch replace it with something which will fail a bit more often. Why > > don't we go all the way and do something which will fail *even more > > often*. Namely, just delete the damn function in the hope that the > > resulting failures will provoke the ext4 crew into doing something sane > > this time? > > I just need it fixed because the deadlocks are constantly hanging my > tests and/or switching off lockdep. > > > > Guys, this delalloc thing *sucks*. And here we are just sticking new > > bandaids on top of the old bandaids. And the btrfs approach isn't > > exactly a thing of glory, either. > > > > So... nope. I won't be applying Nick's patch. Please fix this thing > > properly - you have a whole month! > > Testers have less. It would be better to fix it now and rip it out at > the start of the next merge window if you're that way inclined :) Is this going to be fixed in time, or shall we merge my patch for 2.6.37? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
