On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 08:09:54AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Either way...in the near term we should probably take the patch that I > originally proposed, just to ensure that no one hits the bugs that > Kinglong hit. That does still leave some gaps in the seqid handling, > but those are preferable to the warning and deadlock. > > Bruce, does that sound reasonable? I can send that patch in a separate > email if you'd prefer. What is the patch you proposed? As far as I can tell the short term action would require two patches: - treat 0 like NFS4ERR_DELAY (not directly related to your patch) - send the old layout stateid with a recall, and only increment it in nfsd4_cb_layout_release when we actually change the layout state -- 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
