From: Zheng Liu Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8 v2] ext4: initialize extent status tree Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:27:14 +0800 Message-ID: <20120928072714.GA8544@gmail.com> References: <1345615545-26133-1-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@taobao.com> <1345615545-26133-4-git-send-email-wenqing.lz@taobao.com> <20120919190541.GE28470@thunk.org> <20120925124252.GA1518@gmail.com> <20120925205921.GA8625@thunk.org> <20120926020955.GA4101@gmail.com> <20120926024745.GA11468@thunk.org> <20120926032426.GA496@gmail.com> <20120926033740.GC11468@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Yongqiang Yang , Allison Henderson , Zheng Liu To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:55186 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753330Ab2I1HQh (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:16:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120926033740.GC11468@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:37:40PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:24:26AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > Can you let me know what changes you need to make? If it is to add > > > new features or new sanity checks, does it make sense to simply make > > > it as new commits to existing patch set? Or are there fundamental > > > problems with the current set, that would be better to fix in the > > > current set of commits? (Or is it just minor stylistic/spelling > > > fixes?) > > > > > > Thanks!! > > > > In new patch set, there is three changes as beblow: > > > > 1. add a sanity check in ext4_evict_inode() > > 2. fix a bug in ext4_find_delalloc_range(). This bug is reported by > > xfstest #230 when we enable bigalloc feature. > > 3. Add a new rwlock to protect extent status tree. > > > > So I think that we can only add a sanity check and fix the bigalloc bug, > > and then apply this patch set because the changes are minor. For adding > > a new lock to protect extent status tree, we can add this feature in a > > new patch. If you think it is OK, I can generate a new patch set, do > > some tests using xfstest, and submit it as soon as possible. What's > > your opinion? > > Do you think you can get me the patches by the end of the week? If > so, that should work. Hi Ted, Until now, I have fixed the bigalloc bug that is reported by xfstest #230, and merged Hugh's patch. But I do really think that this patch set couldn't be applied at this merge window because the change is not *minor*, and it still needs to do more tests. That would be great if you can keep this patch set in dev branch at this merge window. Thanks! Regards, Zheng