linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 32/41] staging: lustre: llite: restart short read/write for normal IO

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:   Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:45:28 +0100 (BST)
From:   James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Bobi Jam <bobijam.xu@...el.com>,
        Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xiong@...el.com>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/41] staging: lustre: llite: restart short read/write
 for normal IO


> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:22:35AM +0100, James Simmons wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:28:28PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > > From: Bobi Jam <bobijam.xu@...el.com>
> > > > 
> > > > If normal IO got short read/write, we'd restart the IO from where
> > > > we've accomplished until we meet EOF or error happens.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bobi Jam <bobijam.xu@...el.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xiong@...el.com>
> > > > Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6389
> > > > Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/14123
> > > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/fail.c          |    1 +
> > > >  .../staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h    |    2 +
> > > >  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/file.c         |   41 ++++++++++++--------
> > > >  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/vvp_io.c       |   19 ++++++++-
> > > >  4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Due to other changes in the filesystem tree, this patch no longer
> > > applies :(
> > > 
> > > Can you rebase it and resend?
> > 
> > How long will you be accepting patches to merge for? If its going
> > to be a few weeks like to just include the missing two patches with
> > the next batch.
> 
> I don't understand the question.  I always accept patches, no need to
> not send them, I'll queue them up to the proper branches as needed.  So
> what do you mean here?

I had the impression that more complex patches like the ones I have been
sending tend to accepted only at the start of the release cycle and only
simpler patches go into *-rc[3-7] versions. That is why I asked the
above question.
 
> > Another issue I need to look at is the IB changes. That's going to
> > require some heavy surgery to the ko2iblnd driver so its going to
> > take time for me to port this to the new RDMA RW api. That will
> > need to be push to linus so ko2iblnd can work with the 4.9 tree
> > if that is okay with you.
> 
> Sure, send the patches, but maybe it is a 4.10 thing if it's too much
> work?

We can work it out once I have something useful. Thanks.