On 12/14/2012 07:43 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
We should drop this one, I think. See upstream commit
4c199a93a2d36b277a9fd209a0f2793f8460a215. When we added the similar call
on teh request tree it caused some noise in linux-next and then got
removed.
Well, we need to initialize it. In
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Alex Elder wrote:
On 12/14/2012 07:43 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
We should drop this one, I think. See upstream commit
4c199a93a2d36b277a9fd209a0f2793f8460a215. When we added the similar call
on teh request tree it caused some noise in linux-next and then got
removed.
On 12/17/2012 10:45 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Alex Elder wrote:
On 12/14/2012 07:43 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
We should drop this one, I think. See upstream commit
4c199a93a2d36b277a9fd209a0f2793f8460a215. When we added the similar call
on teh request tree it caused some noise
We should drop this one, I think. See upstream commit
4c199a93a2d36b277a9fd209a0f2793f8460a215. When we added the similar call
on teh request tree it caused some noise in linux-next and then got
removed.
sage
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Alex Elder wrote:
It turns out to be harmless but the
It turns out to be harmless but the red-black node o_node in the
ceph osd structure is not initialized in create_osd(). Add a
call to rb_init_node() initialize it.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder el...@inktank.com
---
net/ceph/osd_client.c |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git