On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 06:00:35PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > Actually I think that the regression in 269'th you have found recently > > caused by similar issue and commit which you foud by bisecting ( the one > > which allow migration between indirect<->extent based inodes) > > simply helps to spot real issue in es_caching code. > > I will revise this patch. IIRC, we forgot to update status tree after > an inode is migrated from extent-based to indirect-based. Thanks for > pointing out. Can you do this as a new commit? I've already bumped the master pointer up since I finished running xfstests and I'm seeing no regressions (at least with my set of xfstests). So given that everything has been tested and things looks pretty stable, I pushed up the master branch. I did remember that you were still working on this regression, but since we're already half-way through the merge window, I really want to make things are ready for a merge request to Linus. (Which I probably will be sending to Linus by Monday or Tuesday.) I do plan to collect bug fixes and any remaining regression fixes to push to Linus by -rc2 or -rc3, so if don't rush fixing up defrag functionality. Thanks!! - Ted -- 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
