Dan, I remember that we waited for the recovery code (aka IP failover code)
reorganization patches to go into V2.6 alone. Do they now have enough
runtime to get merged into V2.5 stable branch?
Regards, Malahal.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> Here's the set of commi
On 11/1/17 3:07 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
I think we only need a single call fired off. If the client doesn't get it,
there's not much recourse. I guess if a TCP connection actually fails, we could
retry then, but over UDP there is no way to know what happened.
Thanks for working on cleaning this
>From :
rae...@zit-rlp.de has uploaded this change for review. (
https://review.gerrithub.io/385405
Change subject: Modified exports to use libcidr for IPv4/IPv4 address and
prefix matching.
..
Modified exports to use libcidr
> On 11/1/17 3:07 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
> > I think we only need a single call fired off. If the client doesn't get it,
> > there's
> not much recourse. I guess if a TCP connection actually fails, we could retry
> then, but over UDP there is no way to know what happened.
> >
> > Thanks for worki
>From Malahal :
Malahal has uploaded this change for review. (
https://review.gerrithub.io/385433
Change subject: Fix updating mtime/atime with nano seconds.
..
Fix updating mtime/atime with nano seconds.
Change-Id: I8a9160ce
Ok, so this patch: https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/385433/ has a real
failure visible, however, it clearly has nothing to do with the patch at
hand.
How do we want to handle that for merge? The patch clearly is ready for
merge, but with a -1 Verify, if we're going to make this verification stuff
m
On 11/02/2017 11:46 AM, Frank Filz wrote:
Ok, so this patch: https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/385433/ has a real
failure visible, however, it clearly has nothing to do with the patch at
hand.
How do we want to handle that for merge? The patch clearly is ready for
merge, but with a -1 Verify, if w
They're in use in downstream for Ceph, and have been tested by QA, so
they should be safe. If we decide we don't want them in 2.5, then
downstream RHCS will just need to carry them as patches.
Daniel
On 11/02/2017 03:56 AM, Malahal Naineni wrote:
Dan, I remember that we waited for the recover
>From :
william.allen.simp...@gmail.com has uploaded this change for review. (
https://review.gerrithub.io/385451
Change subject: CLNT_CALL with clnt_req
..
CLNT_CALL with clnt_req
Pull up nTI-RPC
* CLNT_CALL with clnt_req
> On Nov 1, 2017, at 7:25 PM, Pradeep wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Pradeep wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding linux-nfs (did not work last couple of times because of email
>>> format).
>>>
>>> Is this supposed to work with Linux NFS c
I think there are two threads, one calling state_unlock() and other calling
state_lock(). The latter doesn't acquire the state_lock leading to the
current crash. My patch is not the culprit. Based on my code reading, the
caller of state_lock() is expected to acquire state_lock if needed. That it
wh
11 matches
Mail list logo
