On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:25:40PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 01:00:02PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > How about this. > > It gets rid of the return values (which were confusing anyway) and adds > > explicit checks on CAHCE_PENDING where needed. > > ?? > > Thanks, I'll take a look in the morning when my head's (hopefully) > clearer. Looks reasonable to me on a quick skim. > > Also, I noticed there is a race with the call to cache_limit_defers. The > > 'dreq' could be freed before that is called. > > > > It looks like I need to resubmit a lot of this - do you want to just discard > > it all from your -next and I'll make something new? > > I'm trying very hard not to rewind -next; so I'd prefer incremental > patches for anything already there, replacements for the rest. But I'll wait for a new series. Thanks! --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
