On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:51:34PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:25:48AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention that this patch bases against ext4/master
> > branch. Now ext4/dev branch has some regression when I run xfstests.
>
> What regressions are you seeing?
generic/300.
When I try to test my patch, I know that there has a report that
invalidate page range patch set causes a regression, and I am not sure
whether invalidate page range patch set causes it or not. So I decide
to generate my patch against ext4/master. So, don't worry. :-)
BTW, I will run xfstests this week. If I meet any regression, I will
let you know.
>
> > Ted, I notice that now in ext4 tree we have 'dev', 'dev-with-revert',
> > and 'dev2' branches. Which one is the best to generate a new patch for
> > the next merge window?
>
> Either the dev branch or the master branch.
>
> The dev-with-revert and dev2 were branches that I had created when
> investigating a potential regression with the invalidage page range
> patch set. I've since determined that it's a timing issue and it's
> not a new regression --- we've had xfstests failures with test
> generic/300 for a while now.
Thanks for pointing it out.
- Zheng
--
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
