On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:33:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:54:58AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:39:32PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > I've verified that this fixes all three failing xfstests reported in this mail. > > > Thanks! > > > > Hey Dave, > > > > Are you planning on pushing this fix for v4.4? > > No plans to right now - ENOSPC is a corner case that most users > won't be anywhere near, especially for experimental functionality on > hardware nobody actually has.... Really? I realize that it may be a case that most users won't actually hit, but it is a 5 line change that fixes four xfstests regressions between v4.3 and v4.4 for my DAX testing... Is there a strong reason *not* to push it in the v4.4 cycle? I'm trying to clear up all xfstests differences between DAX and non-DAX, and this would help quite a bit. -- 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
