# Fwd: \[RFC\]\[PATCH 3/8 v2\] ext4: initialize extent status tree

- From: Zheng Liu \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-09-29 13:24:48 
- List: linux-ext4
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-ext4/2012/09/67538
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-ext4/2012/09/67538/t.md

```text
[Sorry, I got an delivery error when the original mail is sent to the
mailing list.  Cc' to them]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 03:27:14PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >
> > 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!
>
> The dev branch is the set of patches that are planned to go to Linus
> during the next merge window, so if we drop it from the merge window,
> I would drop it from the dev branch and put it in the "unstable"
> portion of the patch series.
>
> It would be a shame to drop it since this provides the SEEK_HOLE
> capability, though.  Can you say more about which change is not minor?
> The change to fix the bigalloc bug?   Or the whole patch series?
>
>

Hi Ted,

When I try to fix the bigalloc bug, some code that operates on extent
status tree and  maintains its status are changed when I do some
changes in ext4_find_delalloc_range().  So that quite has a lot of
changes I thought in the whole patch series.  So I think that we'd
better drop this patch set from dev branch.  Thanks.

Regards,
Zheng
```