From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p5U6oQ3K187385 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:50:26 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5FC254C2886 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id T6vaQyri4BUCeJ5y for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:50:24 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] patch queue for Linux 3.1 Message-ID: <20110630065024.GA6566@infradead.org> References: <20110629140109.003209430@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110630063658.GI561@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110630063658.GI561@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 04:36:58PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:01:09AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This is my current patch queue for Linux 3.1. It includes the previously > > all previously sent patches I'm planning for Linux 3.1 inclusion through > > the XFS tree and a few new ones. The most important new bits is a cleanup > > of the structures describing the dir2 on-disk format, which got a bit > > more urgent due to more recent gcc versions complaining about the hacks > > used in the current version. > > > > The sync lifelock fix is included only in a minimal version that removes > > the data syncs. I plan to sort out the iocount waiting via the i_alloc_sem > > removal patches that have been sent for inclusion in the VFS tree. I'll > > cc the XFS list on the updated version with XFS chances. > > With this series I'm seeing test 180 fail relatively frequently with > 1k block size filesystem. I shall try to debug this given the other > reports of 180 failing that have recently come to light... Interesting. I've not seen 180 fail any time recently, with either 4k of 512 byte block size filesystems. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs