On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:24:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > I've rebased my trees and pushed them all to github. > > The for-dave-for-4.6 kernel and progs branches are the giant piles of patches > against Dave's for-next integration trees which (I think) are being reviewed > for 4.6. > > The for-dave branches are against upstream as they've always been. BTW, what's the point of for-dave vs for-dave-for-4.6 for xfsprogs? > New patches have been added on the end of the patchset. > > I noticed that generic/139 crashes for-dave with a 1k block size due something > or other sending us bio->bi_bdev == NULL. This seems to be sorted out somehow > in for-next. Other than that I haven't seen any problems... but I've only > run against x64 on bare XFS. Will run other arches/NFS/etc tonight/tomorrow. > > The transaction block reservation complaints should be fixed now, and I > think the transaction reservations have been fixed too... or at least they > don't show up on the tinydisk test setup. But all that means is that someone > else will find it, probably within the first 3 minutes of testing. :P Passes on NFS without hitting the space reservation issue, and passes on XFS without new regression. The odd transaction (not space) reservation assert in xfs/140 that I started to myesteriously 100% reproduce last week still is around on XFS. I'll see if I can fix that or at least triage it further.. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
