On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:29:22 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday January 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ...and only have lockd exit when the last reference is dropped.
> >
> > The problem is this:
> >
> > When a lock that a client is blocking on comes free, lockd does
> > t
On Tuesday January 8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...and only have lockd exit when the last reference is dropped.
>
> The problem is this:
>
> When a lock that a client is blocking on comes free, lockd does this in
> nlmsvc_grant_blocked():
>
> nlm_async_call(block->b_call, NLMPROC_GRANTED_MS
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:48:14 +
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:36:21PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I don't see a good alternative though. We need to be able to drop
> > the and check the refcount in nlmsvc_unlink_block. That function is
> > called fro
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:36:21PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> I don't see a good alternative though. We need to be able to drop the
> and check the refcount in nlmsvc_unlink_block. That function is called
> from lockd, and we can't have lockd call kthread_stop on itself.
>
> If you see a better w
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:47:07 +
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:33:18PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > ...and only have lockd exit when the last reference is dropped.
> >
> > The problem is this:
> >
> > When a lock that a client is blocking on comes fr
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:33:18PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> ...and only have lockd exit when the last reference is dropped.
>
> The problem is this:
>
> When a lock that a client is blocking on comes free, lockd does this in
> nlmsvc_grant_blocked():
>
> nlm_async_call(block->b_call, NLMP
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:52:19 -0500
Wendy Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> >> The previous patch removes a kill_proc(... SIGKILL), this one
> >> adds it back.
> >> That makes me wonder if the intermediate state is 'correct'.
> >>
> >> But I also wonder what "correct" mea
Jeff Layton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:46:33 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The comments about patch 5/6 seem sane. I'll plan to incorporate them
in the respin...
On Saturday January 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -357,7 +375,18 @@ lockd_down(void)
goto
Jeff Layton wrote:
The previous patch removes a kill_proc(... SIGKILL), this one adds it
back.
That makes me wonder if the intermediate state is 'correct'.
But I also wonder what "correct" means.
Do we want all locks to be dropped when the last nfsd thread dies?
The answer is presumably eithe
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:46:33 +1100
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The comments about patch 5/6 seem sane. I'll plan to incorporate them
in the respin...
> On Saturday January 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > @@ -357,7 +375,18 @@ lockd_down(void)
> > goto out;
> > }
> > wa
On Saturday January 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> @@ -357,7 +375,18 @@ lockd_down(void)
> goto out;
> }
> warned = 0;
> - kthread_stop(nlmsvc_task);
> + if (atomic_sub_return(1, &nlmsvc_ref) != 0)
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "lockd_down: lockd is waiting fo
11 matches
Mail list logo
