[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd8Kbnp0paFt-FmaFiEu6KWX8jCyE7NZ-SHfEj4Ad5-ANA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:52:25 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
michael.brantley@...haw.com, hch@...radead.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
pstaubach@...grid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] vfs: add the ability to retry on ESTALE to
several syscalls
2012/7/27, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:15:23 +0900
> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff.
>>
>> Which testcase(or test method) do I use to know improved point from
>> ESTALE error ?
>> I want to know before & after using testcase with this patch-set.
>>
>
> It's a bit labor intensive, I'm afraid...
>
> Attached is a cleaned-up copy of the test program that Peter wrote to
> test his original patchset. The basic idea is to run this on both the
> client and server at the same time so they race against each other. He
> was able to run it overnight when testing with his patchset.
>
> With this patchset, that doesn't work since we're only retrying the
> lookup and call once. So, what I've been doing is modifying the program
> so that it just runs one test at a time, and sniffing traffic to see
> whether the lookups and calls are retried after an ESTALE return from
> the server.
Sorry for late response.
I will check this patch with testcase you shared.
Thanks Jeff.
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists