Patchwork [RFC,0/8,v2] ext4: extent status tree (step 1)

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Theodore Ts'o
Date Sept. 20, 2012, 2:41 p.m.
Message ID <20120920144126.GA22334@thunk.org>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/185410/
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Comments

Theodore Ts'o - Sept. 20, 2012, 2:41 p.m.
Hi Zheng,

I've applied your patches to the ext4 patch queue, and so they have
shown up in the dev branch of the ext4 git tree.

One thing I've noticed in my regression tests is that there is a new
test failure with this patch series applied.  It is xfstests #230,
when bigalloc is enabled:

FSTYP         -- ext4
PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 candygram 3.6.0-rc1-00043-ga3229f7
MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -q -O bigalloc /dev/vdc
MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr -o block_validity /dev/vdc /vdc

230	       - output mismatch (see 230.out.bad)
Ran: 230
Failures: 230
Failed 1 of 1 tests

I haven't had time to take a look at this, and it's only failing when
bigalloc is enabled.  If you could take a look I would greatly
appreciate it.

Thanks!!

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Zheng Liu - Sept. 21, 2012, 1:51 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:41:26AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Hi Zheng,
> 
> I've applied your patches to the ext4 patch queue, and so they have
> shown up in the dev branch of the ext4 git tree.
> 
> One thing I've noticed in my regression tests is that there is a new
> test failure with this patch series applied.  It is xfstests #230,
> when bigalloc is enabled:
> 
> FSTYP         -- ext4
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 candygram 3.6.0-rc1-00043-ga3229f7
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -q -O bigalloc /dev/vdc
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr -o block_validity /dev/vdc /vdc
> 
> 230	       - output mismatch (see 230.out.bad)
> --- 230.out    2012-09-19 01:15:44.000000000 -0400
> +++ 230.out.bad		  2012-09-20 10:37:05.143728890 -0400
> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
>  ### create files, setting up ownership (type=u)
>  ### some buffered IO (type=u)
>  Write 900k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Rewrite 1001k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 1000k...
>  pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 4096...
> @@ -21,7 +23,9 @@
>  ### create files, setting up ownership (type=g)
>  ### some buffered IO (type=g)
>  Write 900k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Rewrite 1001k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 1000k...
>  pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 4096...
> Ran: 230
> Failures: 230
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
> 
> I haven't had time to take a look at this, and it's only failing when
> bigalloc is enabled.  If you could take a look I would greatly
> appreciate it.

Hi Ted,

Sorry for delay reply.  I will look at this problem after I finish
inline data patch set for e2fsprogs.  Thanks for your review.

Regards,
Zheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Yongqiang Yang - Sept. 21, 2012, 3:19 a.m.
Hi  Ted,

I notices you cares Signed-off line, so I just throw a message.

I noticed you changed all Signed-off line of patches, some patches are
written by me initially and is modified by Allison and Zheng. So I
think Signed-off line should be me, Allison and Zheng.  Do I
misunderstand the rules?

Yongqiang.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi Zheng,
>
> I've applied your patches to the ext4 patch queue, and so they have
> shown up in the dev branch of the ext4 git tree.
>
> One thing I've noticed in my regression tests is that there is a new
> test failure with this patch series applied.  It is xfstests #230,
> when bigalloc is enabled:
>
> FSTYP         -- ext4
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/i686 candygram 3.6.0-rc1-00043-ga3229f7
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -q -O bigalloc /dev/vdc
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr -o block_validity /dev/vdc /vdc
>
> 230            - output mismatch (see 230.out.bad)
> --- 230.out    2012-09-19 01:15:44.000000000 -0400
> +++ 230.out.bad           2012-09-20 10:37:05.143728890 -0400
> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
>  ### create files, setting up ownership (type=u)
>  ### some buffered IO (type=u)
>  Write 900k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Rewrite 1001k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 1000k...
>  pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 4096...
> @@ -21,7 +23,9 @@
>  ### create files, setting up ownership (type=g)
>  ### some buffered IO (type=g)
>  Write 900k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Rewrite 1001k...
> +pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 1000k...
>  pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
>  Write 4096...
> Ran: 230
> Failures: 230
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
> I haven't had time to take a look at this, and it's only failing when
> bigalloc is enabled.  If you could take a look I would greatly
> appreciate it.
>
> Thanks!!
>
>                                         - Ted
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Theodore Ts'o - Sept. 22, 2012, 12:02 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:19:54AM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> Hi  Ted,
> 
> I notices you cares Signed-off line, so I just throw a message.
> 
> I noticed you changed all Signed-off line of patches, some patches are
> written by me initially and is modified by Allison and Zheng. So I
> think Signed-off line should be me, Allison and Zheng.  Do I
> misunderstand the rules?

Thanks, I didn't realize that you and Allison had written parts of the
patches.  Yes, in that case it should be "Signed-off-by".  I've made
this change to my tree.  (And this is why I don't cast commits into
stone for a few days before I advance the master branch pointer.)

      	    	     	      	      	  	 - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Zheng Liu - Sept. 24, 2012, 3:16 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:02:17PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:19:54AM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> > Hi  Ted,
> > 
> > I notices you cares Signed-off line, so I just throw a message.
> > 
> > I noticed you changed all Signed-off line of patches, some patches are
> > written by me initially and is modified by Allison and Zheng. So I
> > think Signed-off line should be me, Allison and Zheng.  Do I
> > misunderstand the rules?
> 
> Thanks, I didn't realize that you and Allison had written parts of the
> patches.  Yes, in that case it should be "Signed-off-by".  I've made
> this change to my tree.  (And this is why I don't cast commits into
> stone for a few days before I advance the master branch pointer.)

Thanks Yongqiang to point out it.  Indeed Yongqiang and Allison had
written parts of this patch set.

Regards,
Zheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

--- 230.out    2012-09-19 01:15:44.000000000 -0400
+++ 230.out.bad		  2012-09-20 10:37:05.143728890 -0400
@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ 
 ### create files, setting up ownership (type=u)
 ### some buffered IO (type=u)
 Write 900k...
+pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Rewrite 1001k...
+pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Write 1000k...
 pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Write 4096...
@@ -21,7 +23,9 @@ 
 ### create files, setting up ownership (type=g)
 ### some buffered IO (type=g)
 Write 900k...
+pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Rewrite 1001k...
+pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Write 1000k...
 pwrite64: Disk quota exceeded
 Write 4096...