[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070419214931.GX24044@iucha.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:49:32 -0500
From: florin@...ha.net (Florin Iucha)
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: chuck.lever@...cle.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Failure! Re: [PATCH 0/4] 2.6.21-rc7 NFS writes: fix a series of issues
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > I'm far from the machine right now, so I will do some more tests
> > tonight, but right now, the new patchset is not good. What is the
> > difference between reverting the patch you sent yesterday and your
> > current fifth patch? I assume the other four are identical, right?
>
> The only difference is the way in which we handle retries of an NFSv4
> request: the new patch disconnects if and only if a timeout has
> occurred, or the server sends us garbage.
I have to mention that I rebased to the head of the tree
(895e1fc7226e6732bc77138955b6c7dfa279f57a) before applying your
patches, in order to test what I expect the official tree to be.
Tonight I'll test this kernel once more, then go back to 21-rc7 and
apply your 5 patches and re-test.
florin
--
Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists