On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:22 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 26-10-21 12:12:38, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:27 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi > > <krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is the 9th version of this patch series. Thank you, Amir, Jan and > > > Ted, for the feedback in the previous versions. > > > > > > The main difference in this version is that the pool is no longer > > > resizeable nor limited in number of marks, even though we only > > > pre-allocate 32 slots. In addition, ext4 was modified to always return > > > non-zero errno, and the documentation was fixed accordingly (No longer > > > suggests we return EXT4_ERR* values. > > > > > > I also droped the Reviewed-by tags from the ext4 patch, due to the > > > changes above. > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > > All good on my end. > > I've made a couple of minor comments that > > could be addressed on commit if no other issues are found. > > All good on my end as well. I've applied all the minor updates, tested the > result and pushed it out to fsnotify branch of my tree. WRT to your new > FS_ERROR LTP tests, I've noticed that the testcases 1 and 3 from test > fanotify20 fail for me. After a bit of debugging this seems to be a bug in > ext4 where it calls ext4_abort() with EXT4_ERR_ESHUTDOWN instead of plain > ESHUTDOWN. Not sure if you have that fixed or how come the tests passed for > you. After fixing that ext4 bug everything passes for me. > Gabriel mentioned that bug in the cover letter of the LTP series :-) https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20211026173302.84000-1-krisman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u Thanks, Amir.
