On Sep03 20:47, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:44 +0200, William Dauchy wrote:
> > On Sep03 18:50, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > Thanks again for testing! Does the following fixup on top of the 'v2'
> > > patch also help?
> > > --- a/fs/nfs/unlink.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
> > > @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ void nfs_wait_on_sillyrename(struct dentry *dentry)
> > > {
> > > struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(dentry->d_inode);
> > >
> > > - wait_event(nfsi->waitqueue, atomic_read(&nfsi->silly_count) == 1);
> > > + wait_event(nfsi->waitqueue, atomic_read(&nfsi->silly_count) <= 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > void nfs_block_sillyrename(struct dentry *dentry)
> >
> > hmmm I just realized your v2 version had `== 1`; in fact I tested your v1
> > with `== 0`. Let me some time to retest the v2.
After some more testing the v2 was ok with `== 1`; I tested the v1 too
fast without seeing a v2 has been resent. I guess you can revert `<= 1`
Tested-by: William Dauchy <william@xxxxxxxxx>
Sorry for the noise,
--
William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
