xfs: for-next branch updated to 2e405cd

Hi folks,

The for-next branch of the xfs kernel repository at

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git

has just been updated. This includes a bunch of log recovery fixes for v5 filesystems.

REMINDER: [email protected] is going at the end of the month. Please change your XFS list subscription to [email protected], otherwise things will go silent for you....

-Dave.

The new head of the for-next branch is commit:

2e405cd Merge branch 'xfs-4.9-log-recovery-fixes' into for-next

New Commits:

Brian Foster (5):
[12818d2] xfs: rework log recovery to submit buffers on LSN boundaries [22db9af] xfs: pass current lsn to log recovery buffer validation [040c52c] xfs: don't warn on buffers not being recovered due to LSN [60a4a22] xfs: update metadata LSN in buffers during log recovery [5cd9cee] xfs: log recovery tracepoints to track current lsn and buffer submission

Dave Chinner (3):
[292378e] xfs: remote attribute blocks aren't really userdata [ddeb14f] xfs: quiesce the filesystem after recovery on readonly mount [2e405cd] Merge branch 'xfs-4.9-log-recovery-fixes' into for-next

Code Diffstat:

 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c |  23 +++---
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.h |  17 ++++-
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c  |  41 +++++++----
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.h  |   2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c    |   2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c  |   2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_filestream.c   |   9 ++-
 fs/xfs/xfs_log_priv.h     |   3 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c  | 191 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c        |  14 ++++
 fs/xfs/xfs_super.c        |   2 +-
 fs/xfs/xfs_super.h        |   1 +
 fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h        |  39 ++++++++--
 13 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)

Dave Chinner
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

I tested this update (and the update from last week) through all my usual tests (except some long-term stress tests). Tests all passed, results all look good.

BTW, I start testing for-next branch because I find that it's much easier to do bisection here if there's any regression, than on linus tree, where all updates merge all together.

Thanks,
Eryu