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, 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 familiar with
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 data
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
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 was
I observed a GPF in dlm_lowcomms_stop() in a crash dump from a
user. I'll include a traceback at the bottom. I have a theory as to
what is going on, but could use some help proving it.
1 void dlm_lowcomms_stop(void)
2 {
3 /* Set all the flags to prevent any
4 socket activity.
5 */
6
