Hi Dave, On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 11:31:22AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 12:18:53PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Here I am reposting your xfssyncd series. I want to make sure that > > we're all on the same page. In particular, are we all happy with patch > > 6, 'xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant'? > > > > Version 4: > > - updated 'xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant' with cleanups to the > > xfs_flush_inodes interface as per Christoph's request, > > - updated 'xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant', folding in changes from > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-10/msg00036.html > > - fixed a minor typo in xfs: 'syncd workqueue is no more', renaming the > > log worker from 'xfs-reclaim' to 'xfs-log'. > > > > I was going to rush this in for the 3.7 merge window. However in the > > light of the issues with patch 6 and Linus's comment here: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/30/152 and Stephen's comment here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/23/144, I think it wiser to behave. 3.7 > > is stable without this series, so I will merge it for 3.8. > > > > Once we have an agreement that patch 6 is ready I will pull this in to the > > master branch first thing after the 3.7-rc1 merge from upstream. > > <sigh> > > Seriously? Take it as good news. Brian found the regression and put the brakes on before I pulled it in. My regret in this is that SGI didn't find it first. We have a very stable 3.7 release, one less regression, and a full release cycle to test this series in the master branch. That is a pretty good outcome for XFS users. > Why am I only finding out that there needs to be more > rework to patches in this series after someone else reposted them? You aren't. There are currently two pending suggestions for the series, and apparently one has been around for awhile: 1) 'xfs: sync work is now only periodic log work' HCH: "I still think queueing the work item here if we return a failure is the wrong thing to do." This issue was mentioned before I reposted your series: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00046.html From Mark on Sep 4 http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00465.html From HCH on Sep 28 That is just a missed opportunity after the initial suggestion from Mark. It happens. I had planned to pull it in anyway. That is probably not the best judgement on my part. 2) 'xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant.' HCH: (on xfs_flush_inodes) "It's more than a trivial wrapper now, so I'd suggest to move out of line to e.g. xfs_super.c" This one is my fault. I might have considered moving xfs_flush_inodes out of xfs_mount.h when I folded your other patch in. I hope you don't mind fixing that up. > And that this is the cause of it missing the merge window? The regression is the only reason this missed the merge window. I was ready to push the series to -next when Brian pulled the cord. According Linus and Stephens comments we should have content in -next by -rc7. Clearly there is some flex in that system but I have no desire to find its limit, and I think that this experience proves their point. Lesson learned! I will be more conservative regarding the merge window in the future. I'm giving this series some soak time with the new fix. I can't pull it in with the new fix for the regression until we have some testing. Once we have some confidence in it I will push it up to oss. My understanding is that work for 3.8 should not be added to -next during the merge window for 3.7-rc1, so you have plenty of time to address Mark&Christoph's concern. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
