Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753605AbbLKE02 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:26:28 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:64268 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752213AbbLKE0Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:26:25 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,411,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="838976295" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:26:09 -0700 From: Ross Zwisler To: Dave Chinner Cc: Ross Zwisler , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Brian Foster , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: xfstests failures with xfs, dax and v4.4-rc3 Message-ID: <20151211042609.GA5360@linux.intel.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ross Zwisler , Dave Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Brian Foster , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer References: <20151202183438.GA1319@linux.intel.com> <20151202202910.GH19199@dastard> <20151202204502.GI19199@dastard> <20151202213932.GA7652@linux.intel.com> <20151210165458.GA13603@linux.intel.com> <20151210223333.GH26718@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151210223333.GH26718@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1141 Lines: 26 On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:33:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:54:58AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:39:32PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > I've verified that this fixes all three failing xfstests reported in this mail. > > > Thanks! > > > > Hey Dave, > > > > Are you planning on pushing this fix for v4.4? > > No plans to right now - ENOSPC is a corner case that most users > won't be anywhere near, especially for experimental functionality on > hardware nobody actually has.... Really? I realize that it may be a case that most users won't actually hit, but it is a 5 line change that fixes four xfstests regressions between v4.3 and v4.4 for my DAX testing... Is there a strong reason *not* to push it in the v4.4 cycle? I'm trying to clear up all xfstests differences between DAX and non-DAX, and this would help quite a bit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/