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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1801081805100.9942@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:06:01 +0000 (GMT)
From:   James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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...

Agree. This patch set is only a few hours old.