On Sun 12-05-13 13:01:11, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:05:59 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 03:00:53PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > > I've bisected ext4 related issue. It is appeared that it is pure ext4
> > > specific. Regression caused by followi
On 5/14/13 2:11 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed a
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >>> In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch
> >>> before
> >>> it wa
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:59:25PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > This is how it's failing for me
> Because you ask questions, but do not read answers :)
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=136580060822252&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=136610044500931&w=2
Sorry, I thought I was runn
On 5/13/13 12:01 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>>> In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch
>>> before
>>> it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests
>
On Mon 13-05-13 11:34:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch
> > before
> > it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests
> > was executed manually logs was full o
On 5/12/13 4:01 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> In fact '4eec70' are vexing because I have reviewed and tested this patch
> before
> it was marked as Review-by, but missed the bug. This is because xfstests
> was executed manually logs was full of warnings but tainted flag was not
> checked at the end
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:17:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 13-05-13 21:56:43, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change
On Mon 13-05-13 21:56:43, Zheng Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> > > >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly f
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:52:21 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:47:05PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > In fact generic/299 always succeed for me, but it produce warning
> > WARNING: at fs/ext4/inode.c:3218 ext4_ext_direct_IO
> > and complains from slab debug. But it was mi
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:47:05PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> In fact generic/299 always succeed for me, but it produce warning
> WARNING: at fs/ext4/inode.c:3218 ext4_ext_direct_IO
> and complains from slab debug. But it was missed because i've missed
> this error in the logs and forget to ch
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:30:36 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Grumble. In this case I think bitfields are not worth the trouble with gcc.
> > It's a pitty we have to spend additional 8 bytes for every journal_head but
> > we'll survive...
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> > >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> > >> development cycle, this is the patch
On Mon 13-05-13 09:30:36, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Grumble. In this case I think bitfields are not worth the trouble with gcc.
> > It's a pitty we have to spend additional 8 bytes for every journal_head but
> > we'll survive... I'll send Ted a p
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Grumble. In this case I think bitfields are not worth the trouble with gcc.
> It's a pitty we have to spend additional 8 bytes for every journal_head but
> we'll survive... I'll send Ted a partial revert and add a comment so that
> we won'
On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
>
>
> >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> >> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
>
> >> - Ted
>
> > Hello, I'
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:05:00 + (GMT), EUNBONG SONG
wrote:
>
>
> >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> >> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
>
> >> - Te
>> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
>> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
>> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
>> - Ted
> Hello, I've tested with your patch. But the same problem was reproduced.
> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
> - Ted
Hello, I've tested with your patch. But the same problem was reproduced.
Curren
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:05:59 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 03:00:53PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > I've bisected ext4 related issue. It is appeared that it is pure ext4
> > specific. Regression caused by following commit
> > commit 4eec708d263f0ee10861d69251708a225b64
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 03:00:53PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> I've bisected ext4 related issue. It is appeared that it is pure ext4
> specific. Regression caused by following commit
> commit 4eec708d263f0ee10861d69251708a225b64cac7
> Author: Jan Kara
> Date: Thu Apr 11 23:56:53 2013 -0400
21 matches
Mail list logo
