在 2024/8/26 22:08, Josef Bacik 写道:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 05:15:22PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 03:50:51PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:37:00AM +0800, Li Zetao wrote:
Hi all,
In btrfs, because there are some interfaces that do not use folio,
there is page-folio-page mutual conversion. This patch set should
clean up folio-page conversion as much as possible and use folio
directly to reduce invalid conversions.
This patch set starts with the rectification of function parameters,
using folio as parameters directly. And some of those functions have
already been converted to folio internally, so this part has little
impact.
I have tested with fsstress more than 10 hours, and no problems were
found. For the convenience of reviewing, I try my best to only modify
a single interface in each patch.
Josef also worked on converting pages to folios, and this patch set was
inspired by him:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1722022376.git.jo...@toxicpanda.com/
This looks good, I'm running it through the CI. If that comes out clean then
I'll put my reviewed-by on it and push it to our for-next branch. The CI run
can be seen here
https://github.com/btrfs/linux/actions/runs/10531503734
Looks like the compression stuff panic'ed, the run has to finish before it
collects the dmesg so IDK where it failed yet, but I'd go over the compression
stuff again to see if you can spot it. When the whole run finishes there will
be test artifacts you can get to. If you don't have permissions (I honestly
don't know how the artifacts permission stuff works) then no worries, I'll grab
it in the morning and send you the test and dmesg of what fell over. Thanks,
They all fell over, so I suggest running fstests against your series before you
resend. btrfs/069 paniced on one machine, btrfs/060 paniced on one machine.
None of the machines passsed without panicing. Thanks,
Thank you for your test. When btrfs/060 and btrfs/069 failed due to my
carelessness, Dan has issued a patch[1] to fix it. After applying his
patch, it was still found that 3 test cases reported errors. I reverted
my patchset and the error still persists, so the errors may not be
caused by my patch. Below is the test log:
Failures: btrfs/012 btrfs/249 btrfs/284
Failed 3 of 322 tests
My xfstests project is forked from https://github.com/kdave/xfstests.git
Josef
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20240827153739.gy25...@twin.jikos.cz/T/#m3f3e28dad05a9c8385a72f5503a5b9c130b44c04
Thanks,
Li Zetao.
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
