On Tue 07-03-17 17:26:56, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 07-03-17 08:10:29, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-03-17 09:25:42, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 17:13 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 06-03-17 07:44:55, J
On Tue 07-03-17 08:10:29, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 06-03-17 09:25:42, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 17:13 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Mon 06-03-17 07:44:55, James Bottomley wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > > Sure. The
On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 15:41 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 06-03-17 09:25:42, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 17:13 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-03-17 07:44:55, James Bottomley wrote:
> ...
> > > > > Sure. The call trace is:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ 41.919244] --
On Mon 06-03-17 09:25:42, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 17:13 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 06-03-17 07:44:55, James Bottomley wrote:
...
> > > > Sure. The call trace is:
> > > >
> > > > [ 41.919244] [ cut here ]
> > > > [ 41.919263] WARNING: CPU: 4
On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 17:13 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 06-03-17 07:44:55, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 16:14 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-03-17 06:35:21, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 13:01 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 06-03-17 11
On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 16:14 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 06-03-17 06:35:21, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 13:01 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 06-03-17 11:27:33, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun 05-03-17 10:21:11, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > FYI next-
On Mon 06-03-17 07:44:55, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 16:14 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 06-03-17 06:35:21, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 13:01 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Mon 06-03-17 11:27:33, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On
On Mon 06-03-17 06:35:21, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 13:01 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 06-03-17 11:27:33, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sun 05-03-17 10:21:11, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > FYI next-20170303 is good while mainline is bad with this error.
> > > > T
On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 13:01 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 06-03-17 11:27:33, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun 05-03-17 10:21:11, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > FYI next-20170303 is good while mainline is bad with this error.
> > > The attached reproduce-* may help reproduce the issue.
> >
> >
Hi,
On Sun 05-03-17 10:21:11, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> FYI next-20170303 is good while mainline is bad with this error.
> The attached reproduce-* may help reproduce the issue.
Thanks for report! So from the stacktrace we are in the path testing
removal of a device immediately after it has been prob
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:12:30AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 03/04/2017 07:21 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Hi Jan,
FYI next-20170303 is good while mainline is bad with this error.
The attached reproduce-* may help reproduce the issue.
What's the test case here? It's Sunday, we need to make a qui
On 03/04/2017 07:21 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> FYI next-20170303 is good while mainline is bad with this error.
> The attached reproduce-* may help reproduce the issue.
What's the test case here? It's Sunday, we need to make a quick
decision on whether to revert this patch or not. I'm
12 matches
Mail list logo