On 1/27/17 8:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:08:00PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> This seems to cause regressions for me, at least on generic/108, xfs/004 > > xfs/004 isn't really broken, it just needs a change every time we > tune some reservations. I've been pondering to just drop that > sub-check. Ok yeah, I realized that this morning, sorry for the noise. > I can't run generic/108 as it requires a modular scsi_debug, and > none of my test setups uses modular kernels, so I'm curious on how > that could get broken by this change. I'll keep looking to be sure it's legit. It didn't really make sense to me either, but ... yup, i'm seeing it. the fsync error doesn't come through as expected. I'll keep looking into it. oh, btw: > Note that this could increase mount times with large finobt trees. In > an ideal world we would have added a field for the number of finobt > fields to the AGI, similar to what we did for the refcount blocks. > We should do add it next time we rev the AGI or AGF format by adding > new fields. maybe should stick a comment in there as a reminder? :) -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
