[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <001e01cf5def$72489500$56d9bf00$@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:55:21 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To: 'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@....edu>
Cc: 'linux-ext4' <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
'Lukáš Czerner' <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] ext4: disable COLLAPSE_RANGE for bigalloc
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 01:52:28PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the status of the "[2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in
> > > data journalling mode" patch. Is it no longer needed?
> > It is needed. Currently, I am considering your suggestion of introducing
> > EXT4_I(inode)->i_write_mutex which can also include ext4_aio_mutex.
>
> OK; I've already pushed a set of patches to Linus because it's getting
> fairly late in the development cycle, and we really want to get as
> much of the bug fixes into -rc3 (having missed -rc2 by a few hours,
> sigh).
Okay, I will try to fix remaning issues in -rc3.
>
> By the way, in doing some final testing, it appears that we are still
> failing generic/127 with a 1k blocksize. If I block COLLAPSE_RANGE
> using the patch that everyone but me seems to hate :-), the problem
> goes away. So we have at least one other issue that needs to be
> looked at.
>
> You can reproduce by grabbing the dev branch from the ext4.git tree,
> and then cherry-picking the top commit from the unstable branch.
>
> Then run "kvm-xfstests -c 1k generic/127", with and without the
> following in config.custom:
>
> EXTRA_ARG="ext4.fallocate_mode_block=0x08"
Okay, I will look at this issue now.
Thanks Ted!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists