On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 08:56:39AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:12:30AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 02:10:34PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > - kernel code seems to be regression from when not using sparse > > inodes > > What regression are you referring to? Doh! typo there. s/from/free/ > > - inode allocation speed does not seem to be impacted by sparse > > inode allocation - running my fsmark tests on a debug kernel show > > no performance differential, even though sparse inode chunks > > should be created in that case. > > - it smoke tests through xfstests ok > > I haven't really run into much for issues so far save for a problem > discovered with the DEBUG mode code from my recent large block size > testing. I have a patch for that lying around I need to post... > > > I haven't really looked through the userspace code in any detail, > > so I can't really comment on that side of things yet. The kernel > > code looks good, there doesn't appear to be any regressions and the > > new functionailty works so far. Hence I think I'm going to merge > > the kernel code in the 4.2 cycle, and we can work on getting > > userspace into the current dev tree for people to test and use the > > new code.... > > > > Sounds good, thanks. The userspace bits have only been posted for > testing purposes to this point to avoid the churn from active review of > the core code. Since that is now merged, I'll get the latest mechanism > ported over to userspace, incorporate some of the fixes noted above and > get something posted hopefully soon. Can you port it to the current dev branch (libxfs-4.1-update)? That way will be much easier for you, and me when it comes to merging.. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
