On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:37:40PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:24:26AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > Can you let me know what changes you need to make? If it is to add > > > new features or new sanity checks, does it make sense to simply make > > > it as new commits to existing patch set? Or are there fundamental > > > problems with the current set, that would be better to fix in the > > > current set of commits? (Or is it just minor stylistic/spelling > > > fixes?) > > > > > > Thanks!! > > > > In new patch set, there is three changes as beblow: > > > > 1. add a sanity check in ext4_evict_inode() > > 2. fix a bug in ext4_find_delalloc_range(). This bug is reported by > > xfstest #230 when we enable bigalloc feature. > > 3. Add a new rwlock to protect extent status tree. > > > > So I think that we can only add a sanity check and fix the bigalloc bug, > > and then apply this patch set because the changes are minor. For adding > > a new lock to protect extent status tree, we can add this feature in a > > new patch. If you think it is OK, I can generate a new patch set, do > > some tests using xfstest, and submit it as soon as possible. What's > > your opinion? > > Do you think you can get me the patches by the end of the week? If > so, that should work. Hi Ted, Until now, I have fixed the bigalloc bug that is reported by xfstest #230, and merged Hugh's patch. But I do really think that this patch set couldn't be applied at this merge window because the change is not *minor*, and it still needs to do more tests. That would be great if you can keep this patch set in dev branch at this merge window. Thanks! Regards, Zheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
