Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 7/9] gfs2: Fix marking bitmaps non-full

2018-10-12 Thread Steven Whitehouse
Hi, On 11/10/18 20:20, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: Reservations in gfs can span multiple gfs2_bitmaps (but they won't span multiple resource groups). When removing a reservation, we want to clear the GBF_FULL flags of all involved gfs2_bitmaps, not just that of the first bitmap. Signed-off-by:

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 7/9] gfs2: Fix marking bitmaps non-full

2018-10-12 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 11:15, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > The series looks good I think. This one though looks like a bug fix and > should probably go to -stable too? Yes, that's a good idea. The fix applies all the way back to v4.4 or even further. Thanks, Andreas

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 7/9] gfs2: Fix marking bitmaps non-full

2018-10-12 Thread Bob Peterson
- Original Message - > Hi, > The series looks good I think. This one though looks like a bug fix and > should probably go to -stable too? > > Steve. I concur. So can I add your reviewed-by before I push? Bob Peterson

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 7/9] gfs2: Fix marking bitmaps non-full

2018-10-12 Thread Steven Whitehouse
Hi, On 12/10/18 13:06, Bob Peterson wrote: - Original Message - Hi, The series looks good I think. This one though looks like a bug fix and should probably go to -stable too? Steve. I concur. So can I add your reviewed-by before I push? Bob Peterson Yes, please do, Steve.

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/9] gfs2: Minor cleanups and fixes

2018-10-12 Thread Bob Peterson
Hi, Thanks. This patch set is now pushed to the for-next branch of the linux-gfs2 tree: - Original Message - > Here are some minor cleanups and fixes that resulted from looking into > the resource group glock sharing patches (mostly updated versions of the > patches I've previously poste

[Cluster-devel] [GIT PULL] gfs2: another 4.19 fix

2018-10-12 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
Hi Greg, as explained in the commit in this pull request, the previous fix I've sent was bad. Could you please pull this follow-up fix? Thanks, Andreas -- The following changes since commit dc480feb454a975b7ee2c18a2f98fb34e04d3baf: gfs2: Fix iomap buffered write support for journaled files (

[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: Fix iomap buffered write support for journaled files (2)

2018-10-12 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
It turns out that the fix in commit 6636c3cc56 is bad; the assertion that the iomap code no longer creates buffer heads is incorrect for filesystems that set the IOMAP_F_BUFFER_HEAD flag. Instead, what's happening is that gfs2_iomap_begin_write treats all files that have the jdata flag set as jour

[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: Clean up gfs2_is_{ordered, writeback}

2018-10-12 Thread Andreas Gruenbacher
The gfs2_is_ordered and gfs2_is_writeback checks are weird in that they implicitly check for !gfs2_is_jdata. This makes understanding how to use those functions correctly a challenge. Clean this up by making gfs2_is_ordered and gfs2_is_writeback take a super block instead of an inode and by remov