On 7/8/19 7:14 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 05 2019 at 4:24pm -0400,
Junxiao Bi wrote:
Hi Mike,
Do i make sense on this?
No, you haven't made your chase for this change. Sorry.
Please refine the patch header to _not_ get into context you have from
a vendor kernel. I know you say
On Mon, Jul 08 2019 at 7:54pm -0400,
Junxiao Bi wrote:
> On 7/8/19 7:14 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jul 05 2019 at 4:24pm -0400,
> >Junxiao Bi wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Mike,
> >>
> >>Do i make sense on this?
> >No, you haven't made your chase for this change. Sorry.
> >
> >Please refine
On Fri, Jul 05 2019 at 4:24pm -0400,
Junxiao Bi wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Do i make sense on this?
No, you haven't made your chase for this change. Sorry.
Please refine the patch header to _not_ get into context you have from
a vendor kernel. I know you say this is hard to reproduce, etc. But
Hi Mike,
Do i make sense on this?
Thanks,
Junxiao.
On 7/3/19 10:19 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for reviewing, see comments inlined.
On 7/3/19 9:21 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02 2019 at 7:14pm -0400,
Junxiao Bi wrote:
The following deadlock was caputred on 4.1, since
Hi Mike,
Thanks for reviewing, see comments inlined.
On 7/3/19 9:21 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02 2019 at 7:14pm -0400,
Junxiao Bi wrote:
The following deadlock was caputred on 4.1, since dm_bufio_shrink_count
still had bufio lock acquired, this was already fixed by mainline. But
On Tue, Jul 02 2019 at 7:14pm -0400,
Junxiao Bi wrote:
> The following deadlock was caputred on 4.1, since dm_bufio_shrink_count
> still had bufio lock acquired, this was already fixed by mainline. But
> shrinker will also invoke dm_bufio_shrink_scan by ->scan_objects, so
> looks like mainline
