On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:46:47AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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! Well, just to have the bug fixed, I've applied your simple original fix (1/7), but would still happily take incremental cleanup. Out of this series that just leaves [PATCH 4/7] sunrpc/cache: centralise handling of size limit on deferred list. [PATCH 5/7] sunrpc/cache: allow thread manager more control of whether threads can wait for upcalls (And with no particular objection to either--they just seemed more RFC's than "please apply"'s.) --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
