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
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
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
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com 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
On 5/14/13 2:11 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com 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
On Sun 12-05-13 13:01:11, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:05:59 -0400, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu 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
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=136580060822252=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4=136610044500931=2
Sorry, I thought I was running
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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've tested with
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't
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 partial
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 which I'm
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:30:36 -0400, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu 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
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 check
On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:52:21 -0400, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu 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
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 for the next
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 and we can
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 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 of
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
was
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-ext4m=136580060822252w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4m=136610044500931w=2
Sorry, I thought I was running with
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.
>
> >> -
>> 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.
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
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:05:59 -0400, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu 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
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.
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:05:00 + (GMT), EUNBONG SONG eunb.s...@samsung.com
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.
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
On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:17:38 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov
wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 12:13:20 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:27:47 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > Hmm, since you seem to be able to reproduce the problem reliably, any
> >
On Sat, 11 May 2013 13:17:38 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov dmonak...@openvz.org
wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
On Sat, 11 May 2013 12:13:20 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov dmonak...@openvz.org
wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:27:47 -0400, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
Hmm, since you seem to be
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 j...@suse.cz
Date: Thu Apr 11 23:56:53
44 matches
Mail list logo
