On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 14:29 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > This is my current bug fix stack. They are probably all candidates > for 2.6.39, though I don't mind if we put any of them off > until.40... I thought I had said so before on the first three of these but I guess not. They look good to me. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> As far as whether to send them to Linus for 2.6.39--I think they'd all four be OK, but none of them are (recent) regressions and I'm on a pretty good long streak of not getting flamed by Linus. So unless you feel strongly about it, I'm going to hold them for 2.6.40. The fourth one I have been following along on the sidelines without really looking closely at the code involved. Now that you and Lachlan seem to have agreed on this tiny fix I'll take a much closer look, as I consider all your discussion along the way. However, without even doing that I'm OK with committing it, since I think the change is very small, it fixes the test 250 crash issue, and the worst it would do appears to be exhausting space just a little earlier when it's almost gone already. So I'm prepared to pull this series when you request it. I'm testing with it right now and have seen no trouble. Oh, except that test 250 appears to have no saved golden output, and the test itself may need a little work to allow for that. (Will you look into that?) -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
