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