On 17.10.2016 12:32, Steven Hartland wrote:
> On 17/10/2016 09:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> On 17.10.2016 11:45, Steven Hartland wrote:
>>> IIRC the timeout for this was intentionally lower than the default,
>>> might be worth just checking.
>> I did traced back the commit history, and it was hard
On 17/10/2016 09:51, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 17.10.2016 11:45, Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC the timeout for this was intentionally lower than the default,
might be worth just checking.
I did traced back the commit history, and it was hardcoded to that value
since the beginning 18 years ago.
On 17.10.2016 11:45, Steven Hartland wrote:
> IIRC the timeout for this was intentionally lower than the default,
> might be worth just checking.
I did traced back the commit history, and it was hardcoded to that value
since the beginning 18 years ago. Theoretically SYNCHRONIZE CACHE may
require
IIRC the timeout for this was intentionally lower than the default,
might be worth just checking.
On 17/10/2016 09:35, Alexander Motin wrote:
Author: mav
Date: Mon Oct 17 08:35:56 2016
New Revision: 307507
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/307507
Log:
Consider device as clean e
Author: mav
Date: Mon Oct 17 08:35:56 2016
New Revision: 307507
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/307507
Log:
Consider device as clean even if SYNCHRONIZE CACHE failed.
If device reservation was preempted by other initiator, our sync request
will always fail. Without this ch
