On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:50:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:18:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I'm running 3.17 + for-next + a handful of local patches, but this > > is the only patch that modifies anything in this area. I'll remove > > all the other patches I have just to check.... > > When this is the only patch on top of 3.17+for-next it still > triggers. > Interesting, I didn't catch this. I do reproduce with v4 and v3. Note that this is the assert for having at least 1 indirect block reservation, so it's a separate problem (not a stale delalloc problem): http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-09/msg00337.html What looks like is going on here is this patch regresses current for-next due to our previous zero range workaround to flush on zero range. This was originally reproducible on tot, the zero range flush quiets it down by forcing delalloc conversion, and this patch reintroduces it simply by eliminating the flush. I've just recently got back to fixing that problem. I have a couple patches that need more testing, but I'll try to get them posted for review today. Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
