On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote:
Gergely Czuczy wrote:
[stuff snipped]
Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing
it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your
analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't
think would mean it's solved, since that would only mean, the codepath
for my specific usecase works. There might be other things there as
well, what I don't hit.
I hope by vehemently, you didn't find my comments as nasty. If they did
come out that way, it was not what I intended and I apologize.
Oh, totally not. I barely meant that you guys are right in the middle of the technical discussion, and it doesn't seemed settled.

Let me know which patch should I test, and I will see to it in the next
couple of days, when I get the time to do it.
I've attached it here again and, yes, I would agree that the results you get
from testing are just another data point and not definitive.
(I'd say this statement is true of all testing of nontrivial code.)

Thanks in advance for any testing you can do, rick
Updated the tree and the patch has applied:
# patch < /home/phoemix/textmod.patch
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
|--- fs/nfsclient/nfs_clvnops.c.text    2017-03-16 21:55:16.263393000 -0400
|+++ fs/nfsclient/nfs_clvnops.c 2017-03-17 09:31:23.632814000 -0400
Patching file fs/nfsclient/nfs_clvnops.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 140.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 177.
Hunk #3 succeeded at 3375.

When I'm back home from work, I will check the build out, and see how it goes.

And thank you very much guys for working on fixing this one.


freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to