Julian Foad wrote on Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:11 +00:00:
> (Off the top of my head, did sub tests 1-8 fail with "already locked"
> and 9 is the odd one out?)
In the file "output" inside the tarball you sent, yes. I haven't run
the tests on my machine.
Thanks for the response, Daniel. I'm away and it will be a few days before I
can check and respond completely.
(Off the top of my head, did sub tests 1-8 fail with "already locked" and 9 is
the odd one out?)
30 Jul 2020 00:00:32 Daniel Shahaf :
> (I wasn't going to comment on this since I don't
(I wasn't going to comment on this since I don't know this part of the
code too well, but given the crickets…)
So, the undesired behaviour is this:
> This commit failed unexpectedly:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/home/julianfoad/tmp/svn/wd-nv-7983/test-release-proto-rev-lock-
Ping: can anyone comment on this proposed patch?
- Julian
Julian Foad wrote:
CC'ing more possible experts Dmitry, Evgeny: any thoughts about whether
this change makes sense for FSFS commit?
- Julian
Julian Foad wrote:
TL;DR: I propose a change to the FSFS commit-transaction function, to
r
CC'ing more possible experts Dmitry, Evgeny: any thoughts about whether
this change makes sense for FSFS commit?
- Julian
Julian Foad wrote:
TL;DR: I propose a change to the FSFS commit-transaction function, to
release the proto-rev write lock if an error occurs while it has this lock.
The
5 matches
Mail list logo
