Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 09:35 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> Just as a quick FYI, I tried applying your patch series on top of my
> development tree, and ran into problems when I ran the regression test
> (using xfstests).  When I backed out your changes and reran, the tests
> completed without any problems.

Thanks Ted, I'll take a look at xfstests and run them next time before
sending out v2.

> I'm rerunning the tests since the first failure looks like it might
> not be related to your patch series (and yet it went away once I
> backed out your patch).  The second failure however looks definitely
> related to your changes.  It looks like you don't wait to make sure
> the workqueue is flushed out before the file system gets unmounted,
> and that can lead to a panic.

Hmm, I thought the whole DIO workqueue would be flushed so I do not have
to do anything. I'll take a look.

> Since we're already in the 3.3 has already been released, I suspect
> this patch series will probably need to wait until the next merge
> window.  We might be able to pull in some of the obviously safe
> patches, however.

Sure, that's fine.

But I wonder, since this is cross-FS story, where I need to first do
small VFS change (export the variable), then change all file-systems,
and then remove whole 's_dirt'/'write_supers()' stuff from VFS, how this
would be handled?

IMO, the best way would be to make everything go in via one single tree,
granted I could get all the acks, do you feel like ext4 tree could be
the one?

Also, I am working on top of vanilla 3.3, do you prefer me to work with
your tree instead? I guess this tree:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git

but which branch?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part