Hi Linus,
I've fixed a bug in the final patch that was found by the kbuild test robot
and disabled a debugging statement in an earlier one. This is now tagged as:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git
tags/fscache-next-20180406
Do you want
Hi,
We have a user reporting BUG splats and FSCache assertion failures with
FSCache and NFS. The full stack traces are below.
We are consistently seeing the following FSCache assertion:
[81738.886634] FS-Cache:
[81738.888281] FS-Cache: Assertion failed
[81738.889461] FS-Cache: 6 == 5 is false
[
rnel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git
> tags/fscache-next-20180406
>
> Do you want me to repost the patchset?
No, but if you can redo the pull request part so that the diffstat I
get will match the diffstat I see in the pull request, that would be
good.
Thanks,
Linu
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> No, but if you can redo the pull request part so that the diffstat I
> get will match the diffstat I see in the pull request, that would be
> good.
Oh, and can you please make sure there is a "[GIT PULL]" in the
subject line for your pull
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So if you have that [GIT PULL] in the subject line, the pulls will
> often be a bit timelier.
That's okay with all the patches as follow up emails?
David
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:28 PM, David Howells wrote:
>
> That's okay with all the patches as follow up emails?
Actually, I generally just look at the git tree and don't need the
individual patches at all, at least as long as they are only to a
particular subsystem.
So if your git tree only touc
f5b78cb583e995f:
Merge branch 'userns-linus' of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace
(2018-04-03 19:15:32 -0700)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git
tags/fscache-next-20180
Hello Daniel,
I have another reference count issue, and have a patch for it. Although
they have differenct panic stack, I think they have same root cause.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cachefs/2018-February/msg0.html
Thanks,
-Lei
在 06/04/2018 7:16 PM, Daniel Axtens 写道:
> Hi,
>
>
Hello Daniel,
I have another reference count issue, and have a patch for it. Although
they have differenct panic stack, I think they have same root cause.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cachefs/2018-February/msg0.html
I did try the patch of
https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cachef
