On 07/17/12 10:46, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
ping/ I'd really like to get this queued up for 3.6
I forget if I mentioned this before, but I pulled this series into our
testing branch and have had no problems (aside from the last patch not
applying to my tree) in qa (ceph on xfs) over the last couple of weeks.
sage
Sage,
The patch "5-5-xfs-remove-iolock-lock-classes.patch" does not cleanly
apply because the comment that the patch is trying to remove in
xfs_iget.c has the following character sequence "<D1><95>" that the
mailer converted to a "?". It is easy enough to hand patch:
/*
* Define xfs inode iolock lockdep classes. We need to ensure that all
active
* inodes are considered the same for lockdep purposes, including
inodes that
* are recycled through the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state. This is the the
only way to
* guarantee the locks are considered the same when there are multiple lock
* initialisation site<D1><95>. Also, define a reclaimable inode class
so it is
^^^^^^^^
--Mark Tinguely.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
