On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On 03/28/2014 07:41 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Alex, Ilya,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've added this and the previous patch to a for-linus branch to send to
>> >> >> Linux for 3.14. The net of the two patches is simply removing the assert,
>> >> >> however... the first changes several lines that then get changed back.
>> >> >> Should we squash them?
>> >> >
>> >> > In my opinion, yes. Ilya's movement of the assert within
>> >> > the spinlock was solving one problem, but ultimately that
>> >> > assertion should go away.
>> >>
>> >> Sage, the way you squashed it we lost Alex's authorship and ended up
>> >> with his Signed-off-by, my Reviewed-by and me as an Author. Since you
>> >> haven't pulled it into kernel.org yet, I did
>> >>
>> >> git commit --amend --author='Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>'
>> >>
>> >> on for-linus to restore justice ;)
>> >
>> > Thanks! I'm noticing now that the commit description doesn't make much
>> > sense, though, since it is talking about the conditions after the first
>> > patch.. might just send the originals, unless Alex wants to rewrite it.
>>
>> I don't see it that way. The conditions it is talking about are true
>> even w/o the first patch, it's just the first patch made it a lot
>> easier to hit the bug.
>
> Ah, you're right, the last part is fine. It's just the failed assertion
> says == instead of >=; changed that. Look ok?
I think so.
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
