From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Luk=E1=A8_Czerner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:06:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1393355679-11160-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20140316190820.GB14162@thunk.org> <20140317210030.GB15218@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-208922536-1395133595=:24748" Cc: =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBDemVybmVyIDxsY3plcm5lckByZWRoYXQuY29tPg==?=@thunk.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: tytso@mit.edu Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51463 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735AbaCRJiH (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:38:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140317210030.GB15218@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-208922536-1395133595=:24748 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, tytso@mit.edu wrote: > Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:00:30 -0400 > From: tytso@mit.edu > To: =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBDemVybmVyIDxsY3plcm5lckByZWRoYXQuY29tPg==?=@thunk.org > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Introduce FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE flag for fallocate > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > > The "dev2" branch in the ext4 git tree has all the patches in this > > > series (1, 2, and 5) --- 3 was included earlier applied on top of the > > > "dev" branch. The "test" branch is the dev2 branch with the > > > xfs-collapse-range branch pulled in, which actually enables the > > > ZERO_RANGE flags (as well as the collapse range patches). > > > > > > When I tried testing with the "test" branch, things failed pretty > > > quickly. I've attached two of these in this patch set. I'm guessing > > > it's some kind of memory corruption problem. These failures are > > > pretty repeatable, and it fails fast. > > Can you let me know when you've had a chance to take a look at this > failure? Once we put back the EOFBLOCK_FL code, I suspect we should > be fine with the first two patches in this patch series, but patch #5 > plus the xfs-collapse-range branch appears to still have issues. > > Thanks!! > > - Ted Yes, I am looking into this since yesterday, but unfortunately I have not found a problem yet. I am still trying to figure it out. -Lukas --8323328-208922536-1395133595=:24748--