On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:23:29PM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:13 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > ACK, I noticed that this isn't in git yet
>
> AFAICT, it's in the git tree:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/steve/gfs2-2.6-nmw.git;a=commitdiff;h=e76700466a04
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:13 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> ACK, I noticed that this isn't in git yet
AFAICT, it's in the git tree:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/steve/gfs2-2.6-nmw.git;a=commitdiff;h=e76700466a04c244d1d29fe51b282838becd4f2d
Are you sure you were looking at nmw?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 09:27:59AM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> This is a rewrite of the patch. We decided it was a better
> approach to call separate wrapper functions than trying to work around
> the problem with a spin_lock.
ACK, I noticed that this isn't in git yet
> --
> The problem boiled
Hi,
Now in the -nmw git tree. Thanks,
Steve.
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 09:27 -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> This is a rewrite of the patch. We decided it was a better
> approach to call separate wrapper functions than trying to work around
> the problem with a spin_lock.
> --
> The problem boiled dow
This is a rewrite of the patch. We decided it was a better
approach to call separate wrapper functions than trying to work around
the problem with a spin_lock.
--
The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads()
function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1.
Essential
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:04:43PM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> diff -pur a/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c b/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c
> --- a/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c2007-09-13 17:33:58.0 -0500
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c2007-09-13 22:47:14.0 -0500
> @@ -279,8
Hi,
Now in the -nmw git tree. Thanks,
Steve.
On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 23:04 -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Josef's right--my bad. Here is the corrected patch for 276631.
>
> The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads()
> function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist =
Josef's right--my bad. Here is the corrected patch for 276631.
The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads()
function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1.
Essentially, "if (current == ls->thread1)" was checked by the thread
before the thread creator set ls->threa
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:46:37PM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> The following is a patch for bugzilla bug 276631.
>
> The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads()
> function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1.
> Essentially, "if (current == ls->thread1)" was che
The following is a patch for bugzilla bug 276631.
The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads()
function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1.
Essentially, "if (current == ls->thread1)" was checked by the thread
before the thread creator set ls->thread1.
Since thr
The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads()
function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1.
Essentially, "if (current == ls->thread1)" was checked by the thread
before the thread creator set ls->thread1.
Since thread1 is the only thread who is allowed to work on t
11 matches
Mail list logo
