On Wed 05-08-15 20:58:25, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Aug 5, 2015, at 3:51 AM, mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: [...] > > The rest are the FS specific patches to fortify allocations > > requests which are really needed to finish transactions without RO > > remounts. There might be more needed but my test case survives with > > these in place. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to order the fs-specific patches _before_ > the "GFP_NOFS can fail" patch (#3), so that once that patch is applied > all known failures have already been fixed? Otherwise it could show > test failures during bisection that would be confusing. As I write below. If maintainers consider them useful even when GFP_NOFS doesn't fail I will reword them and resend. But you cannot fix the world without breaking it first in this case ;) > > They would obviously need some rewording if they are going to be > > applied even without Patch3 and I will do that if respective > > maintainers will take them. Ext3 and JBD are going away soon so they > > might be dropped but they have been in the tree while I was testing > > so I've kept them. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
