Please don't reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by using the
following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9829
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #9503|review?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|review+
Flag|m) |
(From update of attachment 9503)
>@@ -640,7 +640,11 @@ static int after_reply(struct ptlrpc_req
> if (req->rq_import->imp_replayable) {
> spin_lock(&imp->imp_lock);
>- if (req->rq_transno != 0)
>+ /* no point in adding already-committed requests to the replay
>+ * list, we will just remove them immediately. b=9829 */
>+ if (req->rq_transno != 0 &&
>+ (req->rq_transno <=
>req->rq_repmsg->last_committed ||
>+ req->rq_replay))
> ptlrpc_retain_replayable_request(req, imp);
Ah, good catch. Of course we need to save replayable requests regardless of
the transno.
Can you please fix the indenting to match the Lustre coding style:
Please don't reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by using the
following link:
https://mail.clusterfs.com/wikis/lustre/CodingGuidelines
if (req->rq_transno != 0 &&
(req->rq_transno <= req->rq_repmsg->last_committed ||
req->rq_replay))
Can you please land on b1_4 for 1.4.10 and b1_5.
_______________________________________________
Lustre-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
