hi, Al Viro,
On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 03:59:04PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 10:20:57PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> > xfs/046 - output mismatch (see
> > /lkp/benchmarks/xfstests/results//xfs/046.out.bad)
> > --- tests/xfs/046.out 2024-09-30 21:13:44.000
hi, Christoph Hellwig,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 09:54:05PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:35:38AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> >
> > I failed to apply patch in your previous reply to 1122c0c1cc or current tip
> > of axboe-block/for-next:
> >
hi, Christoph Hellwig,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 08:39:50PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:10:49AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand this test request. as in title, we see a good
> > improvement of aim7 for 1122c0c1cc, and we
hi, Christoph Hellwig,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:35:37AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is odd to say at least. Any chance you can check the value
> of /sys/block/$DEVICE/queue/rotational for the relevant device before
> and after this commit? And is this an ATA or NVMe SSD?
>
yeah, a
hi, Christoph Hellwig,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 01:57:35AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> can you test the patch below? It restores the previous behavior if
> the device did not have a volatile write cache. I think at least
> for raid0 and raid1 without bitmap the new behavior
hi, Linus,
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 03:20:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 at 12:23, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > IOW, I might have messed up some "trivial cleanup" when prepping for
> > sending it out...
>
> Bah. Famous last words. One of the "trivial cleanups" made the
