> On Nov 2, 2016, at 13:11, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-31 16:11:02 [+], Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and yes. We can’t rely on the list pointers remaining correct, so we
>> restart the list scan and we use the ops->state_flag_bit to signal whether
>> or not st
On 2016-10-31 16:11:02 [+], Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> Yes, and yes. We can’t rely on the list pointers remaining correct, so we
> restart the list scan and we use the ops->state_flag_bit to signal whether or
> not state has been recovered for the entry being scanned.
but this is tested at
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 11:56, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-31 15:30:02 [+], Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 09:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>>> wrote:
>>> The list_for_each_entry() in nfs4_reclaim_open_state:
>>> It seems that this lock protects the ->s
On 2016-10-31 15:30:02 [+], Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2016, at 09:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > wrote:
> > The list_for_each_entry() in nfs4_reclaim_open_state:
> > It seems that this lock protects the ->so_states list among other
> > atomic_t & flags members. So at the begin
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 09:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
>
> The raw_write_seqcount_begin() in nfs4_reclaim_open_state() bugs me
> because it maps to preempt_disable() in -RT which I can't have at this
> point. So I took a look at the code.
> It the lockdep part was removed in commit abb
The raw_write_seqcount_begin() in nfs4_reclaim_open_state() bugs me
because it maps to preempt_disable() in -RT which I can't have at this
point. So I took a look at the code.
It the lockdep part was removed in commit abbec2da13f0 ("NFS: Use
raw_write_seqcount_begin/end int nfs4_reclaim_open_state"
6 matches
Mail list logo