On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:04:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:56:19PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > they are rebased not to require the inode allocator patchset. I think that Jan > > > is also going to repost his 'Fix overallocation in xfs_buf_allocate_memory()' > > > based upon Dave's suggestions. It's best not to depend upon that either. What > > > do you say, Dave? > > > > I reorder my local patch set and repost it after running it through > > some testing.... > > Sorry, I totally misunderstood the initial issue - I though Ben had my > series applied, and thus yours didn't apply. No, other way around ;) But I'm going to leave Jan kara's buffer cache over-allocation bug fix ahead my list, because that has to go into 3.5-rcX as it is a regression fix.... FWIW, Ben, there's a few reviewed bug fixes on the list that are outstanding that need to go to Linus ASAP: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-06/msg00154.html http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-06/msg00134.html http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-06/msg00056.html (regression) Can you take care of them please? > I still think reordering is better - I'm quite busy and I'd rather get > your series reviewed first before redoing and retesting the inode > allocator changes. > > In fact I'll start reviewing them in about 10 minutes after I've > finished catching up on email for this morning. Cool. I'm just rebasing right now.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
