OK, I'll get them momentarily...
I merged your other patches, and there was a merge
conflict I had to work around... you're working from
an orangefs tree that lacks one commit I had made
last week... my linux-next tree has all your patches
through yesterday in it now...
I am setting up "the gnarly test" (at home from a VM,
though) that should cause a bunch of cancellations,
I want to see if I can get
wait_for_cancellation_downcall to ever
flow past that "if (signal_pending(current)) {"
block... if it does, that demonstrate where
the comments conflict with the code, right?
-Mike
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:54:48PM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote:
>> Well... that all seems awesome, and compiled the first
>> time and all my quick tests on my dinky vm make
>> it seem fine... It is Becky that recently spent a
>> bunch of time fighting the cancellation dragons,
>> I'll see if I can't get her to weigh in on
>> wait_for_cancellation_downcall tomorrow.
>>
>> We have some gnarly tests we were running on
>> real hardware that helped reproduce the problems
>> she was seeing in production with Clemson's
>> Palmetto Cluster, I'll run them, but maybe not
>> until Monday with the ice storm...
>
> OK, several more pushed. The most interesting part is probably switch
> to real completions - you'd been open-coding them for no good reason
> (and as always with reinventing locking primitives, asking for trouble).
>
> New bits just as untested as the earlier ones, of course...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
