linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete

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]

Message-ID: <74468e19-772d-41b8-b7df-c0aa845e52ab@bmw-carit.de>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:33:44 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To:     Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all()

Hi Anna,

On 09/23/2016 03:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote:
>> Besides trying to analys all the code paths to the wait_for_completion()
>> call and convince myself that there is only one waiter, I also run
>> a few tests:
>>
>>  - some fio benchmarks
>>  - pynfs
>>   -cthon04
>
> Thanks for the patches, and for the extensive testing!  I haven't
> tried them with xfstests yet, but They look okay to me otherwise.
> Assuming I don't see any new failures there I'll plan on adding them
> for v4.9.

I tried a few tests from xfstests but I was not sure which make sense to 
run, that's why I went for the more NFS specific tests.

I'll see what happens when I run the generic tests from xfstests. Should 
all of them pass?

cheers,
daniel