On 09/17/2012 04:05 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:37 PM >> To: Ben Hutchings >> Cc: Myklebust, Trond; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Boaz Harrosh; Tigran Mkrtchyan >> Subject: Re: [ 16/46] NFSv4.1: Remove a bogus BUG_ON() in >> nfs4_layoutreturn_done >> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 05:33:03PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 16:39 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> From: Greg KH <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me >> know. >>>> >>>> ------------------ >>>> >>>> From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> commit 47fbf7976e0b7d9dcdd799e2a1baba19064d9631 upstream. >>>> >>>> Ever since commit 0a57cdac3f (NFSv4.1 send layoutreturn to fence >>>> disconnected data server) we've been sending layoutreturn calls >>>> while there is potentially still outstanding I/O to the data >>>> servers. The reason we do this is to avoid races between replayed >>>> writes to the MDS and the original writes to the DS. >>>> >>>> When this happens, the BUG_ON() in nfs4_layoutreturn_done can be >>>> triggered because it assumes that we would never call layoutreturn >>>> without knowing that all I/O to the DS is finished. The fix is to >>>> remove the BUG_ON() now that the assumptions behind the test are >>>> obsolete. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]> >>>> Reported-by: Tigran Mkrtchyan <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> >>> [...] >>> >>> The upstream commit has: >>> >>> Cc: [email protected] [>=3.5] >>> >>> and so I ignored it for 3.2. Is it actually needed for the earlier >>> stable series? >> >> Crud, I missed that somehow :( >> >> Trond, should I revert this in 3.0 and 3.4 stable kernels? > > Hi Greg, > > Applying it to those kernels should be unnecessary but harmless, so if you've > already applied them then I'd say just keep them. > > Cheers > Trond
Trond hi I do hit this with objects layout also in 3.2. I know that in files-layout it only hits post 3.5 But we've been using layout-return since 3.0 Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
