> On Nov 18, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@fieldses.org>
> wrote:
>> Please pull nfsd changes for 4.15 from:
>
> Hmm. This had a tracepoint conflict with the nfs client pull.
Guessing you mean:
commit a30ccf1a9eb8c01f37675758f6359a968193d96e
Author: Chuck Lever <chuck.le...@oracle.com>
AuthorDate: Fri Oct 20 10:35:18 2017 -0400
Commit: Anna Schumaker <anna.schuma...@netapp.com>
CommitDate: Fri Nov 17 16:43:44 2017 -0500
SUNRPC: Fix parsing failure in trace points with XIDs
mount.nf-11159 8.... 905.248380: xprt_transmit: [FAILED TO
PARSE] xid=351291440 status=0 addr=192.168.2.5 port=20049
mount.nf-11159 8.... 905.248381: rpc_task_sleep: task:6210@1
flags=0e80 state=0005 status=0 timeout=60000 queue=xprt_pending
kworker/-1591 1.... 905.248419: xprt_lookup_rqst: [FAILED TO
PARSE] xid=351291440 status=0 addr=192.168.2.5 port=20049
kworker/-1591 1.... 905.248423: xprt_complete_rqst: [FAILED TO
PARSE] xid=351291440 status=24 addr=192.168.2.5 port=20049
Byte swapping is not available during trace-cmd report.
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.le...@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <anna.schuma...@netapp.com>
conflicted with
commit e9d4bf219c83d09579bc62512fea2ca10f025d93
Author: Trond Myklebust <trond.mykleb...@primarydata.com>
AuthorDate: Tue Oct 10 17:31:42 2017 -0400
Commit: J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@redhat.com>
CommitDate: Wed Oct 11 17:08:52 2017 -0400
SUNRPC: Fix tracepoint storage issues with svc_recv and svc_rqst_status
There is no guarantee that either the request or the svc_xprt exist
by the time we get round to printing the trace message.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.mykleb...@primarydata.com>
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@redhat.com>
and that you adjusted a30ccf1a9eb8c01f37675758f6359a968193d96e
to eliminate the merge conflict.
At a glance I don't see a problem with the finished result.
I could have separated a30ccf1a9eb8c01f37675758f6359a968193d96e
into a server-side and client-side change.
> The resolution seems obvious and I did it, but I'd like people to
> review the end result but particularly also their workflows, because I
> don't think that conflict was reported anywhere and doesn't seem to
> exist in next-20171115.
>
> It certainly wasn't mentioned to me in either pull request.
>
> Were the nfs client changes not in next?
>
> Tssk.
>
> Linus
--
Chuck Lever
