On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:33:17AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:17:56AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:42:40PM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:42:56AM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> > > > Hi Dan, I'm not very famili
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:17:56AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:42:40PM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:42:56AM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> > > Hi Dan, I'm not very familiar with this code either, but I've talked with
> > > Chrissie and she
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:42:40PM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:42:56AM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> > Hi Dan, I'm not very familiar with this code either, but I've talked with
> > Chrissie and she suggested we try something like this:
Yeah, that's the mechanism I wa
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:42:56AM -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> Hi Dan, I'm not very familiar with this code either, but I've talked with
> Chrissie and she suggested we try something like this:
A second version that addresses a potentially similar problem in start.
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 07:59:13PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> However... we've dropped the connections_lock, so its possible that a
> new connection gets created on line 9. This connection structure would
> have pointers to the workqueues that we're about to destroy. Sometime
> later on we get da
