On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:21:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:41:49PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I'm going to run this series (and all the other stuff I've collected for > > 4.11) overnight and if nothing screams then you can consider this series: > > Can you push your tree out? I'd like to verify what made it before > heading off for a long weekend tonight. I'm especially curious if > the discard work made it. It's very late tonight, so all the shiny polish is missing, but here's what's in my tree for 4.11 right now: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=xfs-4.11-merge-20170208 Testing isn't done yet, but xfs/222 seems to be blowing up at ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&inode->i_rwsem)) in xfs_super.c fairly consistently with blocksize=1k. I haven't been able to reproduce it quickly (i.e. without running the whole test suite) so I can't tell if that's a side effect of something else blowing up or what. generic/300 seems to blow up periodically and then blows the same assert on umount, also in the 1k case. xfs/348 fuzzes the fs, causes "kernel memory exposure!" BUGs and then asserts with the same i_rwsem thing. The all-defaults 4k blocksize test runs w/ regular disk and pmem all finished without any new fireworks, though. (You'll note I didn't merge the duplicate "xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator"; if you want that done, please let me know.) --D -- 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
