linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:36:07 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lustre <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event
 macros

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:21:50PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:28:13PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >  this is a revised version of the patch series I sent under a similar
> > >  subject in mid December.
> > >  Improvements are:
> > >    - new wait_event_idle* macros are now in include/linux/wait.h which
> > >      Ack from peterz.
> > >    - *all* waits are now TASK_IDLE or TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and so don't
> > >      affect the load average.  There is no need to choose whether load
> > >      is appropriate or not in each case.
> > >    - all l_wait_event() users are handled so l_wait_event() is
> > >      removed.  The one case I had left out before uses
> > >      wait_event_idle_exclusive() with and option of using
> > >      wait_event_idle_exclusive_lifo() is that ever gets approved.
> > > 
> > >  I think this set is ready to go.
> > >  If you only review two patches, please review
> > > 
> > >     staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ldlm_completion_ast()
> > > and
> > >     staging: lustre: remove back_to_sleep()
> > > 
> > >  as in both of those, the actual behaviour of the current code (as I
> > >  understand it) doesn't seem to agree with comments/debug message, or
> > >  just generally looks odd.
> > 
> > This series broke the build, so I'll roll back my tree and drop it.
> > 
> > Please fix it up and resend and test build it first...
> 
> Please don't merge these just yet. They need to be tested first. I don't 
> want to be in a position where the lustre client is totally not usable 
> like in the past. That kind of breakage makes no one want to use the
> lustre client. We have a test suite for these kinds of changes. Neill do 
> you know how to test your patches with the test suite? Also I have been 
> working on several things for the last 4 months to merge upstream. I like
> to coordinate with you so we don't step on each others toes.

If I don't hear anything for a few weeks, I merge patches.  That should
be long enough to test...

thanks,

greg k-h