On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 09:35 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > Just as a quick FYI, I tried applying your patch series on top of my > development tree, and ran into problems when I ran the regression test > (using xfstests). When I backed out your changes and reran, the tests > completed without any problems. Thanks Ted, I'll take a look at xfstests and run them next time before sending out v2. > I'm rerunning the tests since the first failure looks like it might > not be related to your patch series (and yet it went away once I > backed out your patch). The second failure however looks definitely > related to your changes. It looks like you don't wait to make sure > the workqueue is flushed out before the file system gets unmounted, > and that can lead to a panic. Hmm, I thought the whole DIO workqueue would be flushed so I do not have to do anything. I'll take a look. > Since we're already in the 3.3 has already been released, I suspect > this patch series will probably need to wait until the next merge > window. We might be able to pull in some of the obviously safe > patches, however. Sure, that's fine. But I wonder, since this is cross-FS story, where I need to first do small VFS change (export the variable), then change all file-systems, and then remove whole 's_dirt'/'write_supers()' stuff from VFS, how this would be handled? IMO, the best way would be to make everything go in via one single tree, granted I could get all the acks, do you feel like ext4 tree could be the one? Also, I am working on top of vanilla 3.3, do you prefer me to work with your tree instead? I guess this tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git but which branch? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
