Hi,
Thanks - that looks good. I'll add it to the queue as soon as the DLM
patch has made it to the required state too,
Steve.
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 14:45 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | why not just test the flag bit here?
> |
> | Otherwise looks good,
> |
> | Ste
- Original Message -
| why not just test the flag bit here?
|
| Otherwise looks good,
|
| Steve.
Hi,
Silly me. Good catch. It's been a long day. Sigh.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson
---
Author: Bob Peterson
Date: Tue Apr 10 14:08:11 2012 -0
Hi,
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 14:13 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is my revised patch based on Steve's suggestion to base the
> flag on the recent GLF_BLOCKING flag.
>
> We still need to keep this on hold until the prerequisite dlm patch
> is properly upstream.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Pet
Hi,
Here is my revised patch based on Steve's suggestion to base the
flag on the recent GLF_BLOCKING flag.
We still need to keep this on hold until the prerequisite dlm patch
is properly upstream.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson
---
Author: Bob Peterson
Hi,
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:01 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> - Original Message -
> | Hi,
> |
> | On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:11 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> | > Hi,
> | >
> | > Here's another patch (explanation below). This patch replies upon
> | > a DLM patch that hasn't fully gone upstre
Hi,
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 10:08 -0400, David Teigland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12:28AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:11 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here's another patch (explanation below). This patch replies upon
> > > a
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12:28AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:11 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's another patch (explanation below). This patch replies upon
> > a DLM patch that hasn't fully gone upstream yet, so perhaps it
> > shouldn't be
- Original Message -
| Hi,
|
| On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:11 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > Here's another patch (explanation below). This patch replies upon
| > a DLM patch that hasn't fully gone upstream yet, so perhaps it
| > shouldn't be added to the nmw tree until it is. Th
Hi,
Now in both the -fixes and -nmw git trees. Thanks,
Steve.
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 08:56 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch allows caching of the rindex glock. We were previously
> setting the GL_NOCACHE bit when the glock was released. That forced
> the rindex inode to be invalid
Hi,
This patch allows caching of the rindex glock. We were previously
setting the GL_NOCACHE bit when the glock was released. That forced
the rindex inode to be invalidated, which caused us to re-read
rindex at the next access. However, it caused the glock to be
unnecessarily bounced around the cl
Hi,
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 12:11 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's another patch (explanation below). This patch replies upon
> a DLM patch that hasn't fully gone upstream yet, so perhaps it
> shouldn't be added to the nmw tree until it is. This greatly
> improves the performance of gfs2
11 matches
Mail list logo
