[Stable-review] [116/165] ext4: dont return to userspace after freezing the fs with a mutex held
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [BISECTED/2.6.35+] Regression: Machine runs really slowly after commit f12a15be
Next: [PATCH] workqueue: add missing __percpu markup in kernel/workqueue.c
From: Eric Sandeen on 7 Aug 2010 09:40 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Greg KH wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 08/02/2010 07:04 AM, Stefan Bader wrote: >>>> We have reports about this patch breaking lvm snapshhots. Eric, there is a patch >>>> mentioned which is supposed to fix things but its not upstream, yet. >>>> Do you know what happened to that? >>> right, patch below is needed to fix things. >>> >>> Ted just acked it on the list recently; Greg, I'd either drop 116/165 >>> for now, or include the patch below which should be upstream soon... >> I can't take anything that isn't upstream yet. >> >> And I just released with this patch in the kernel, should I do a revert >> and do a new release? > > Any answers on this? > Yes, I'd revert it for now, I'm afraid, if the other patch isn't upstream yet. Sorry about that, -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Stefan Bader on 9 Aug 2010 05:10 On 08/07/2010 03:38 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 08/02/2010 07:04 AM, Stefan Bader wrote: >>>>> We have reports about this patch breaking lvm snapshhots. Eric, there is a patch >>>>> mentioned which is supposed to fix things but its not upstream, yet. >>>>> Do you know what happened to that? >>>> right, patch below is needed to fix things. >>>> >>>> Ted just acked it on the list recently; Greg, I'd either drop 116/165 >>>> for now, or include the patch below which should be upstream soon... >>> I can't take anything that isn't upstream yet. >>> >>> And I just released with this patch in the kernel, should I do a revert >>> and do a new release? >> >> Any answers on this? >> > > Yes, I'd revert it for now, I'm afraid, if the other patch isn't upstream > yet. > > Sorry about that, > > -Eric Upstream as of now (same SHA1 as in linux-next): From 437f88cc031ffe7f37f3e705367f4fe1f4be8b0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen(a)sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:33:29 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] (pre-stable) ext4: fix freeze deadlock under IO -Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Stefan Bader on 11 Aug 2010 05:00 On 08/10/2010 10:16 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:00:43AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote: >> On 08/07/2010 03:38 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Greg KH wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>>> On 08/02/2010 07:04 AM, Stefan Bader wrote: >>>>>>> We have reports about this patch breaking lvm snapshhots. Eric, there is a patch >>>>>>> mentioned which is supposed to fix things but its not upstream, yet. >>>>>>> Do you know what happened to that? >>>>>> right, patch below is needed to fix things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ted just acked it on the list recently; Greg, I'd either drop 116/165 >>>>>> for now, or include the patch below which should be upstream soon... >>>>> I can't take anything that isn't upstream yet. >>>>> >>>>> And I just released with this patch in the kernel, should I do a revert >>>>> and do a new release? >>>> >>>> Any answers on this? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I'd revert it for now, I'm afraid, if the other patch isn't upstream >>> yet. >>> >>> Sorry about that, >>> >>> -Eric >> >> Upstream as of now (same SHA1 as in linux-next): >> >> >From 437f88cc031ffe7f37f3e705367f4fe1f4be8b0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen(a)sandeen.net> >> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:33:29 -0400 >> Subject: [PATCH] (pre-stable) ext4: fix freeze deadlock under IO > > It looks like I can't drop the original one, as this patch builds on it. > So I'll just queue this one up. > > Should it also go into other -stable releases (like .35 and/or .34 -stable?) > Final call would be Eric/Ted but as far as I can see: ..34: not for now (patch that causes regression not backported there (yet)) ..35: yes (offending patch has been in 2.6.35-rc1) -Stefan > thanks, > > greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Eric Sandeen on 11 Aug 2010 08:30
Stefan Bader wrote: > On 08/10/2010 10:16 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:00:43AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote: >>> On 08/07/2010 03:38 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:02:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>>>> On 08/02/2010 07:04 AM, Stefan Bader wrote: >>>>>>>> We have reports about this patch breaking lvm snapshhots. Eric, there is a patch >>>>>>>> mentioned which is supposed to fix things but its not upstream, yet. >>>>>>>> Do you know what happened to that? >>>>>>> right, patch below is needed to fix things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ted just acked it on the list recently; Greg, I'd either drop 116/165 >>>>>>> for now, or include the patch below which should be upstream soon... >>>>>> I can't take anything that isn't upstream yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I just released with this patch in the kernel, should I do a revert >>>>>> and do a new release? >>>>> Any answers on this? >>>>> >>>> Yes, I'd revert it for now, I'm afraid, if the other patch isn't upstream >>>> yet. >>>> >>>> Sorry about that, >>>> >>>> -Eric >>> Upstream as of now (same SHA1 as in linux-next): >>> >>> >From 437f88cc031ffe7f37f3e705367f4fe1f4be8b0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen(a)sandeen.net> >>> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:33:29 -0400 >>> Subject: [PATCH] (pre-stable) ext4: fix freeze deadlock under IO >> It looks like I can't drop the original one, as this patch builds on it. >> So I'll just queue this one up. >> >> Should it also go into other -stable releases (like .35 and/or .34 -stable?) >> > > Final call would be Eric/Ted but as far as I can see: > > .34: not for now (patch that causes regression not backported there (yet)) > .35: yes (offending patch has been in 2.6.35-rc1) As long as the 2 patches go together it should be fine, I don't think there are other significant dependencies. It's also not really an urgent one to fix; returning to userspace w/ a lock held is pretty icky but in practice has not been an actual problem AFAIK; most people use lvm to freeze/unfreeze and it all gets cleaned up.... -Eric > -Stefan > >> thanks, >> >> greg k-h > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |