On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 12:22:05PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 09:48:24AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 11:28:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:39:20PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:23:16AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 07:54:09AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:01:25PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 01:47:23PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:48:21PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Rebuild the free space btrees from the gaps in the rmap btree.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/Makefile | 1
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/scrub/alloc.c | 1
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/scrub/alloc_repair.c | 581 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/scrub/common.c | 8 +
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/scrub/repair.h | 2
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/scrub/scrub.c | 4
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/scrub/trace.h | 2
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c | 14 +
> > > > > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h | 2
> > > > > > > > > 9 files changed, 610 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 fs/xfs/scrub/alloc_repair.c
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/alloc_repair.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/alloc_repair.c
> > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > > index 000000000000..b228c2906de2
> > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/alloc_repair.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,581 @@
> > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > > > + * Make our new freespace btree roots permanent so that we can start freeing
> > > > > > > > > + * unused space back into the AG.
> > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > +STATIC int
> > > > > > > > > +xrep_abt_commit_new(
> > > > > > > > > + struct xfs_scrub *sc,
> > > > > > > > > + struct xfs_bitmap *old_allocbt_blocks,
> > > > > > > > > + int log_flags)
> > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > + int error;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + xfs_alloc_log_agf(sc->tp, sc->sa.agf_bp, log_flags);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + /* Invalidate the old freespace btree blocks and commit. */
> > > > > > > > > + error = xrep_invalidate_blocks(sc, old_allocbt_blocks);
> > > > > > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > > > > > + return error;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It looks like the above invalidation all happens in the same
> > > > > > > > transaction. Those aren't logging buffer data or anything, but any idea
> > > > > > > > how many log formats we can get away with in this single transaction?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hm... well, on my computer a log format is ~88 bytes. Assuming 4K
> > > > > > > blocks, the max AG size of 1TB, maximum free space fragmentation, and
> > > > > > > two btrees, the tree could be up to ~270 million records. Assuming ~505
> > > > > > > records per block, that's ... ~531,000 leaf blocks and ~1100 node blocks
> > > > > > > for both btrees. If we invalidate both, that's ~46M of RAM?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was thinking more about transaction reservation than RAM. It may not
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm. tr_itruncate is ~650K on my 2TB SSD, assuming 88 bytes per, that's
> > > > > about ... ~7300 log format items? Not a lot, maybe it should roll the
> > > > > transaction every 1000 invalidations or so...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not really sure what categorizes as a lot here given that the blocks
> > > > would need to be in-core, but rolling on some fixed/safe interval sounds
> > > > reasonable to me.
> > > >
> > > > > > currently be an issue, but it might be worth putting something down in a
> > > > > > comment to note that this is a single transaction and we expect to not
> > > > > > have to invalidate more than N (ballpark) blocks in a single go,
> > > > > > whatever that value happens to be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + error = xrep_roll_ag_trans(sc);
> > > > > > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > > > > > + return error;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + /* Now that we've succeeded, mark the incore state valid again. */
> > > > > > > > > + sc->sa.pag->pagf_init = 1;
> > > > > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +/* Build new free space btrees and dispose of the old one. */
> > > > > > > > > +STATIC int
> > > > > > > > > +xrep_abt_rebuild_trees(
> > > > > > > > > + struct xfs_scrub *sc,
> > > > > > > > > + struct list_head *free_extents,
> > > > > > > > > + struct xfs_bitmap *old_allocbt_blocks)
> > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > + struct xfs_owner_info oinfo;
> > > > > > > > > + struct xrep_abt_extent *rae;
> > > > > > > > > + struct xrep_abt_extent *n;
> > > > > > > > > + struct xrep_abt_extent *longest;
> > > > > > > > > + int error;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + xfs_rmap_skip_owner_update(&oinfo);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > > > + * Insert the longest free extent in case it's necessary to
> > > > > > > > > + * refresh the AGFL with multiple blocks. If there is no longest
> > > > > > > > > + * extent, we had exactly the free space we needed; we're done.
> > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm confused by the last sentence. longest should only be NULL if the
> > > > > > > > free space list is empty and haven't we already bailed out with -ENOSPC
> > > > > > > > if that's the case?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + longest = xrep_abt_get_longest(free_extents);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > xrep_abt_rebuild_trees is called after we allocate and initialize two
> > > > > > > new btree roots in xrep_abt_reset_btrees. If free_extents is an empty
> > > > > > > list here, then we found exactly two blocks worth of free space and used
> > > > > > > them to set up new btree roots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Got it, thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + if (!longest)
> > > > > > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > > > > > + error = xrep_abt_free_extent(sc,
> > > > > > > > > + XFS_AGB_TO_FSB(sc->mp, sc->sa.agno, longest->bno),
> > > > > > > > > + longest->len, &oinfo);
> > > > > > > > > + list_del(&longest->list);
> > > > > > > > > + kmem_free(longest);
> > > > > > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > > > > > + return error;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + /* Insert records into the new btrees. */
> > > > > > > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(rae, n, free_extents, list) {
> > > > > > > > > + error = xrep_abt_free_extent(sc,
> > > > > > > > > + XFS_AGB_TO_FSB(sc->mp, sc->sa.agno, rae->bno),
> > > > > > > > > + rae->len, &oinfo);
> > > > > > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > > > > > + return error;
> > > > > > > > > + list_del(&rae->list);
> > > > > > > > > + kmem_free(rae);
> > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, at this point we've reset the btree roots and we start freeing the
> > > > > > > > free ranges that were discovered via the rmapbt analysis. AFAICT, if we
> > > > > > > > fail or crash at this point, we leave the allocbts in a partially
> > > > > > > > constructed state. I take it that is Ok with respect to the broader
> > > > > > > > repair algorithm because we'd essentially start over by inspecting the
> > > > > > > > rmapbt again on a retry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right. Though in the crash/shutdown case, you'll end up with the
> > > > > > > filesystem in an offline state at some point before you can retry the
> > > > > > > scrub, it's probably faster to run xfs_repair to fix the damage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we really assume that if we're already up and running an online
> > > > > > repair? The filesystem has to be mountable in that case in the first
> > > > > > place. If we've already reset and started reconstructing the allocation
> > > > > > btrees then I'd think those transactions would recover just fine on a
> > > > > > power loss or something (perhaps not in the event of some other
> > > > > > corruption related shutdown).
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, for the system crash case, whatever transactions committed should
> > > > > replay just fine, and you can even start up the online repair again, and
> > > > > if the AG isn't particularly close to ENOSPC then (barring rmap
> > > > > corruption) it should work just fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the fs went down because either (a) repair hit other corruption or
> > > > > (b) some other thread hit an error in some other part of the filesystem,
> > > > > then it's not so clear -- in (b) you could probably try again, but for
> > > > > (a) you'll definitely have to unmount and run xfs_repair.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, there are certainly cases where we simply won't be able to do an
> > > > online repair. I'm trying to think about scenarios where we should be
> > > > able to do an online repair, but we lose power or hit some kind of
> > > > transient error like a memory allocation failure before it completes. It
> > > > would be nice if the online repair itself didn't contribute (within
> > > > reason) to the inability to simply try again just because the fs was
> > > > close to -ENOSPC.
> > >
> > > Agreed. Most of the, uh, opportunities to hit ENOMEM happen before we
> > > start modifying on-disk metadata. If that happens, we just free all the
> > > memory and bail out having done nothing.
> > >
> > > > For one, I think it's potentially confusing behavior. Second, it might
> > > > be concerning to regular users who perceive it as an online repair
> > > > leaving the fs in a worse off state. Us fs devs know that may not really
> > > > be the case, but I think we're better for addressing it if we can
> > > > reasonably do so.
> > >
> > > <nod> Further in the future I want to add the ability to offline an AG,
> > > so the worst that happens is that scrub turns the AG off, repair doesn't
> > > fix it, and the AG simply stays offline. That might give us the
> > > ability to survive cancelling the repair transaction, since if the AG's
> > > offline already anyway we could just throw away the dirty buffers and
> > > resurrect the AG later. I don't know, that's purely speculative.
> > >
> > > > > Perhaps the guideline here is that if the fs goes down more than once
> > > > > during online repair then unmount it and run xfs_repair.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep, I think that makes sense if the filesystem or repair itself is
> > > > tripping over other corruptions that fail to keep it active for the
> > > > duration of the repair.
> > >
> > > <nod>
> > >
> > > > > > > > The blocks allocated for the btrees that we've begun to construct here
> > > > > > > > end up mapped in the rmapbt as we go, right? IIUC, that means we don't
> > > > > > > > necessarily have infinite retries to make sure this completes. IOW,
> > > > > > > > suppose that a first repair attempt finds just enough free space to
> > > > > > > > construct new trees, gets far enough along to consume most of that free
> > > > > > > > space and then crashes. Is it possible that a subsequent repair attempt
> > > > > > > > includes the btree blocks allocated during the previous failed repair
> > > > > > > > attempt in the sum of "old btree blocks" and determines we don't have
> > > > > > > > enough free space to repair?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's a risk of running the free space repair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we improve on that? For example, are the rmapbt entries for the old
> > > > > > allocation btree blocks necessary once we commit the btree resets? If
> > > > > > not, could we remove those entries before we start tree reconstruction?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alternatively, could we incorporate use of the old btree blocks? As it
> > > > > > is, we discover those blocks simply so we can free them at the end.
> > > > > > Perhaps we could free them sooner or find a more clever means to
> > > > > > reallocate directly from that in-core list? I guess we have to consider
> > > > > > whether they were really valid/sane btree blocks, but either way ISTM
> > > > > > that the old blocks list is essentially invalidated once we reset the
> > > > > > btrees.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, it's a little tricky to do that -- we could reap the old bnobt and
> > > > > cntbt blocks (in the old_allocbt_blocks bitmap) first, but if adding a
> > > > > record causes a btree split we'll pull blocks from the AGFL, and if
> > > > > there aren't enough blocks in the bnobt to fill the AGFL back up then
> > > > > fix_freelist won't succeed. That complication is why it finds the
> > > > > longest extent in the unclaimed list and pushes that in first, then
> > > > > works on the rest of the extents.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, but doesn't a btree split require at least one full space btree
> > > > block per-level? In conjunction, the agfl minimum size requirement grows
> > > > with the height of the tree, which implies available free space..? I
> > > > could be missing something, perhaps we have to account for the rmapbt in
> > > > that case as well? Regardless...
> > > >
> > > > > I suppose one could try to avoid ENOSPC by pushing that longest extent
> > > > > in first (since we know that won't trigger a split), then reap the old
> > > > > alloc btree blocks, and then add everything else back in...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be reasonable to seed the btree with the longest record
> > > > or some fixed number of longest records (~1/2 a root block, for example)
> > > > before making actual use of the btrees to reap the old blocks. I think
> > > > then you'd only have a very short window of a single block leak on a
> > > > poorly timed power loss and repair retry sequence before you start
> > > > actually freeing originally used space (which in practice, I think
> > > > solves the problem).
> > > >
> > > > Given that we're starting from empty, I wonder if another option may be
> > > > to over fill the agfl with old btree blocks or something. The first real
> > > > free should shift enough blocks back into the btrees to ensure the agfl
> > > > can be managed from that point forward, right? That may be more work
> > > > than it's worth though and/or a job for another patch. (FWIW, we also
> > > > have that NOSHRINK agfl fixup flag for userspace repair.)
> > >
> > > Yes, I'll give that a try tomorrow, now that I've finished porting all
> > > the 4.19 stuff to xfsprogs. :)
> > >
> > > Looping back to something we discussed earlier in this thread, I'd
> > > prefer to hold off on converting the list of already-freed extents to
> > > xfs_bitmap because the same problem exists in all the repair functions
> > > of having to store a large number of records for the rebuilt btree, and
> > > maybe there's some way to <cough> use pageable memory for that, since
> > > the access patterns for that are append, sort, and iterate; for those
> > > three uses we don't necessarily require all the records to be in memory
> > > all the time. For the allocbt repair I expect the free space records to
> > > be far more numerous than the list of old bnobt/cntbt blocks.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, it's fair enough that we'll probably want to find some kind of
> > generic, more efficient technique for handling this across the various
> > applicable repair algorithms.
> >
> > One other high level thing that crossed my mind with regard to the
> > general btree reconstruction algorithms is whether we need to build up
> > this kind of central record list at all. For example, rather than slurp
> > up the entire list of btree records in-core, sort it and dump it back
> > out, could we take advantage of the fact that our existing on-disk
> > structure insertion mechanisms already handle out of order records
> > (simply stated, an extent free knows how to insert the associated record
> > at the right place in the space btrees)? For example, suppose we reset
> > the existing btrees first, then scanned the rmapbt and repopulated the
> > new btrees as records are discovered..?
>
> I tried that in an earlier draft of the bnobt repair function. The
> biggest problem with inserting as we go is dealing with the inevitable
> transaction rolls (right now we do after every record insertion to avoid
> playing games with guessing how much reservation is left). Btree
> cursor state can't survive transaction rolls because the transaction
> commit releases all the buffers that aren't bhold'en, and we can't bhold
> that many buffers across a _defer_finish.
>
Ok, interesting.
Where do we need to run an xfs_defer_finish() during the reconstruction
sequence, btw? I thought that would only run on final commit as opposed
to intermediate rolls. We could just try and make the automatic buffer
relogging list a dynamic allocation if there are enough held buffers in
the transaction.
> So, that early draft spent a lot of time tearing down and reconstructing
> rmapbt cursors since the standard _btree_query_all isn't suited to that
> kind of usage. It was easily twice as slow on a RAM-backed disk just
> from the rmap cursor overhead and much more complex, so I rewrote it to
> be simpler. I also have a slight preference for not touching anything
> until we're absolutely sure we have all the data we need to repair the
> structure.
>
Yes, I think that is sane in principle. I'm just a bit concerned about
how reliable that xfs_repair-like approach will be in the kernel longer
term, particularly once we start having to deal with large filesystems
and limited or contended memory, etc. We already have xfs_repair users
that need to tweak settings because there isn't enough memory available
to repair the fs. Granted that is for fs-wide repairs and the flipside
is that we know a single AG can only be up to 1TB. It's certainly
possible that putting some persistent backing behind the in-core data is
enough to resolve the problem (and the current approach is certainly
reasonable enough to me for the initial implementation).
bjoin limitations aside, I wonder if a cursor roll mechanism that held
all of the cursor buffers, rolled the transaction and then rejoined all
said buffers would help us get around that. (Not sure I follow the early
prototype behavior, but it sounds like we had to restart the rmapbt
lookup over and over...).
Another caveat with that approach may be that I think we'd need to be
sure that the reconstruction operation doesn't ever need to update the
rmapbt while we're mid walk of the latter. That may be an issue for
inode btree reconstruction, for example, since it looks like inobt block
allocation requires rmapbt updates. We'd probably need some way to share
(or invalidate) a cursor across different contexts to deal with that.
> For other repair functions (like the data/attr fork repairs) we have to
> scan all the rmapbts for extents, and I'd prefer to lock those AGs only
> for as long as necessary to extract the extents we want.
>
> > The obvious problem is that we still have some checks that allow the
> > whole repair operation to bail out before we determine whether we can
> > start to rebuild the on-disk btrees. These are things like making sure
> > we can actually read the associated rmapbt blocks (i.e., no read errors
> > or verifier failures), basic record sanity checks, etc. But ISTM that
> > isn't anything we couldn't get around with a multi-pass implementation.
> > Secondary issues might be things like no longer being able to easily
> > insert the longest free extent range(s) first (meaning we'd have to
> > stuff the agfl with old btree blocks or figure out some other approach).
>
> Well, you could scan the rmapbt twice -- once to find the longest
> record, then again to do the actual insertion.
>
Yep, that's what I meant by multi-pass.
> > BTW, isn't the typical scrub sequence already multi-pass by virtue of
> > the xfs_scrub_metadata() implementation? I'm wondering if the ->scrub()
> > callout could not only detect corruption, but validate whether repair
> > (if requested) is possible based on the kind of checks that are
> > currently in the repair side rmapbt walkers. Thoughts?r
>
> Yes, scrub basically validates that for us now, with the notable
> exception of the notorious rmapbt scrubber, which doesn't
> cross-reference with inode block mappings because that would be a
> locking nightmare.
>
> > Are there future
> > changes that are better supported by an in-core tracking structure in
> > general (assuming we'll eventually replace the linked lists with
> > something more efficient) as opposed to attempting to optimize out the
> > need for that tracking at all?
>
> Well, I was thinking that we could just allocate a memfd (or a file on
> the same xfs once we have AG offlining) and store the records in there.
> That saves us the list_head overhead and potentially enables access to a
> lot more storage than pinning things in RAM.
>
Would using the same fs mean we have to store the repair data in a
separate AG, or somehow locate/use free space in the target AG? I
presume either way we'd have to ensure that AG is either consistent or
locked out from outside I/O. If we have the total record count we can
preallocate the file and hope there is no such other free space
corruption or something that would allow some other task to mess with
our blocks. I'm a little skeptical overall on relying on a corrupted
filesystem to store repair data, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate
the risks.
I'm not familiar with memfd. The manpage suggests it's ram backed, is it
swappable or something? If so, that sounds a reasonable option provided
the swap space requirement can be made clear to users and the failure
characteristics aren't more severe than for userspace. An online repair
that puts the broader system at risk of OOM as opposed to predictably
failing gracefully may not be the most useful tool.
Brian
> --D
>
> > Brian
> >
> > > --D
> > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > > > --D
> > > > >
> > > > > > Brian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +done:
> > > > > > > > > + /* Free all the OWN_AG blocks that are not in the rmapbt/agfl. */
> > > > > > > > > + xfs_rmap_ag_owner(&oinfo, XFS_RMAP_OWN_AG);
> > > > > > > > > + return xrep_reap_extents(sc, old_allocbt_blocks, &oinfo,
> > > > > > > > > + XFS_AG_RESV_NONE);
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c
> > > > > > > > > index 0ed68379e551..82f99633a597 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -657,3 +657,17 @@ xfs_extent_busy_ag_cmp(
> > > > > > > > > diff = b1->bno - b2->bno;
> > > > > > > > > return diff;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +/* Are there any busy extents in this AG? */
> > > > > > > > > +bool
> > > > > > > > > +xfs_extent_busy_list_empty(
> > > > > > > > > + struct xfs_perag *pag)
> > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > + spin_lock(&pag->pagb_lock);
> > > > > > > > > + if (pag->pagb_tree.rb_node) {
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > RB_EMPTY_ROOT()?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good suggestion, thank you!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --D
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brian
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + spin_unlock(&pag->pagb_lock);
> > > > > > > > > + return false;
> > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > + spin_unlock(&pag->pagb_lock);
> > > > > > > > > + return true;
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h
> > > > > > > > > index 990ab3891971..2f8c73c712c6 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.h
> > > > > > > > > @@ -65,4 +65,6 @@ static inline void xfs_extent_busy_sort(struct list_head *list)
> > > > > > > > > list_sort(NULL, list, xfs_extent_busy_ag_cmp);
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +bool xfs_extent_busy_list_empty(struct xfs_perag *pag);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > #endif /* __XFS_EXTENT_BUSY_H__ */
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > --
> > > 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
> > --
> > 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
> --
> 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
--
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
