On 08/20, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:00:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we hold SB_FREEZE_WRITE lock, so recursive SB_FREEZE_FS is safe.
> >
> > But, this means that the comment in __sb_start_write() is still correct,
> > "XFS for example gets freeze
On 08/20, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:00:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Yes, we hold SB_FREEZE_WRITE lock, so recursive SB_FREEZE_FS is safe.
But, this means that the comment in __sb_start_write() is still correct,
XFS for example gets freeze protection on internal
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:00:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/19, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
> > >
> > > On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Plus another patch which
On 08/19, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
> >
> > On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Plus another patch which removes the "trylock"
> > > hack in __sb_start_write().
> >
> > I meant the
On 08/19, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Plus another patch which removes the trylock
hack in __sb_start_write().
I meant the patch we already discussed
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:00:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/19, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Plus another patch which removes the trylock
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > When I tried to run all tests, I
> > got the new reports from lockdep.
>
> Just in case... when I run all tests I see misc failures (with or without
> the changes above) which I didn't try to
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
>
> On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Plus another patch which removes the "trylock"
> > hack in __sb_start_write().
>
> I meant the patch we already discussed (attached at the end).
On 08/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> When I tried to run all tests, I
> got the new reports from lockdep.
Just in case... when I run all tests I see misc failures (with or without
the changes above) which I didn't try to interpret. In particular xfs/073
just hangs, "shutdown -r" doesn't work, the
Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Plus another patch which removes the "trylock"
> hack in __sb_start_write().
I meant the patch we already discussed (attached at the end). And yes,
previously I reported it passed the tests. However, I only ran the same
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 04:49:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Plus another patch which removes the trylock
hack in __sb_start_write().
I meant the patch we already discussed (attached at the end). And yes,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
When I tried to run all tests, I
got the new reports from lockdep.
Just in case... when I run all tests I see misc failures (with or without
the changes above) which I didn't try to interpret.
Jan, Dave, perhaps you can take a look...
On 08/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Plus another patch which removes the trylock
hack in __sb_start_write().
I meant the patch we already discussed (attached at the end). And yes,
previously I reported it passed the tests. However, I only ran the same
On 08/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
When I tried to run all tests, I
got the new reports from lockdep.
Just in case... when I run all tests I see misc failures (with or without
the changes above) which I didn't try to interpret. In particular xfs/073
just hangs, shutdown -r doesn't work, the serial
14 matches
Mail list logo
