On Tue, Dec 18, 21:30, Ben Myers wrote: > > Understood. Personally, I only care about 3.4 as this is the kernel we > > are running on most of our production systems. Would you be willing > > to submit the patch also for 3.4-stable if Matthias or myself > > reproduced the issue on 3.4 and confirmed that the patch fixes the > > problem there as well? > > We had some trouble getting particular area of code settled down over the > course of a few releases. Unfortunately we had some crashes on unmount during > that time which were not immediately reproduceable and that adds another > wrinkle to this. > > Looks to me like 3.4 doesn't have the problem that Dave is trying to address > here because it doesn't check for MS_ACTIVE in xfs_sync_worker. You're already > good to go. Excellent! Thanks a bunch for looking into this. Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
