On Jan 28, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Felix Blyakher wrote:
(I think Wendy's pretty close to that api already after adding the
second method to start grace?)
For reclaiming grace period issues, maybe we should move to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2008-January/
Felix Blyakher wrote:
(I think Wendy's pretty close to that api already after adding the
second method to start grace?)
For reclaiming grace period issues, maybe we should move to
https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2008-January/msg00340.html
thread ?
I view this (unlock) patch
Hi Bruce,
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:00 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:23:42PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
To summarize a phone conversation from today:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Would there be any advantage to
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:23:42PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
To summarize a phone conversation from today:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Would there be any advantage to enforcing that requirement in the
server? (For example,
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:23:42PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
To summarize a phone conversation from today:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Would there be any advantage to enforcing that requirement
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:49PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:45:37PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
In practice, it seems that both the unlock_ip and unlock_pathname
On Tuesday January 22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
?
!
(i.e. Acked-By: NeilBrown [EMAIL PROTECTED])
tnx.NB
--b.
commit 6685389d610950126f700d25f3d010c7049441c3
Author: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jan 22 17:40:42 2008 -0500
nfsd: more careful input validation in
Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
shell echo 10.1.1.2 /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_ip
shell echo /mnt/sfs1 /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_filesystem
The expected sequence of events can be:
1. Tear down the IP address
You might consider using iptables at this point for dropping outgoing
packets with that
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:17:08AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Yeah, sounds good. Maybe under Documentation/filesystems? And it might
also be helpful to leave a reference to it in the code, e.g., in
nfsctl.c:
/*
* The following are used for failover; see
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Yeah, sounds good. Maybe under Documentation/filesystems? And it might
also be helpful to leave a reference to it in the code, e.g., in
nfsctl.c:
/*
* The following are used for failover; see
* Documentation/filesystems/nfsd-failover.txt for
Add a more detailed description into the top of the patch itself. I'm
working on the resume patch now - it will include an overall write-up in
the Documentation directory.
-- Wendy
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 05:48:00PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Revised version of the patch:
* based on comment from Neil Brown, use sscanf() to parse IP address (a
cool idea imo).
* the ret inside nlm_traverse_files() is now the file count that can't
be unlocked.
* other minor changes
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:48:56AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Remind me: why do we need both per-ip and per-filesystem methods? In
practice, I assume that we'll always do *both*?
Failover normally is done via virtual IP address - so per-ip base method
should be
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:48:56AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Remind me: why do we need both per-ip and per-filesystem methods? In
practice, I assume that we'll always do *both*?
Failover normally is done via virtual IP address -
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:31:22AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:48:56AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Remind me: why do we need both per-ip and per-filesystem methods? In
Frank Filz wrote:
I assume the intent here with this implementation is that the node
taking over will start lock recovery for the ip address? With that
perspective, I guess it would be important that each file system only be
accessed with a single ip address otherwise lock recovery will not
To summarize a phone conversation from today:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Would there be any advantage to enforcing that requirement in the
server? (For example, teaching nlm to reject any locking request for a
certain filesystem that
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:14:54AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
+static ssize_t failover_unlock_ip(struct file *file, char *buf,
size_t size)
+{
+ __be32 server_ip;
+ char *fo_path;
+ char *mesg;
+
+ /* sanity check */
+ if (size = 0)
+ return
Neil Brown wrote:
On Saturday January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a combined patch that has:
* changes made by Christoph Hellwig
* code segment that handles f_locks so we would not walk inode-i_flock
list twice.
.
if (unlikely(failover)
!failover(data, file))
Neil Brown wrote:
On Tuesday January 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't feel comfortable to change the existing code structure,
especially a BUG() statement. It would be better to separate lock
failover function away from lockd code clean-up. This is to make it
easier for problem
Revised version of the patch:
* based on comment from Neil Brown, use sscanf() to parse IP address (a
cool idea imo).
* the ret inside nlm_traverse_files() is now the file count that can't
be unlocked.
* other minor changes from latest round of review.
Thanks to all for the review !
--
On Tuesday January 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revised version of the patch:
* based on comment from Neil Brown, use sscanf() to parse IP address (a
cool idea imo).
* the ret inside nlm_traverse_files() is now the file count that can't
be unlocked.
* other minor changes from latest
On Monday January 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static ssize_t failover_unlock_ip(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t
size)
+{
+ __be32 server_ip;
+ char *fo_path;
+ char *mesg;
+
+ /* sanity check */
+ if (size = 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
Not only is
On Saturday January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a combined patch that has:
* changes made by Christoph Hellwig
* code segment that handles f_locks so we would not walk inode-i_flock
list twice.
If agreed, please re-add your ack-by and signed-off lines
respectively. Thanks ...
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 06:02:15PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:57:45PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Ok, I played around with this and cleaned up the ip/path codepathes to
be entirely setup which helped the code quite a bit. Also a few
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:49:17PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+/* cluster failover support */
+
+typedef struct {
+ int cmd;
+ int stat;
+ int gp;
+ void*datap;
+} nlm_fo_cmd;
please don't introduce typedefs for struct types.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 03:57:45PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Ok, I played around with this and cleaned up the ip/path codepathes to
be entirely setup which helped the code quite a bit. Also a few other
Thanks for doing this :) . In the middle of running it with
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:39:25AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
+#define DEBUG 0
+#define fo_printk(x...) ((void)(DEBUG printk(x)))
Please don't introduce more debugging helpers but use the existing
ones.
+extern __u32 in_aton(const char *str);
This is properly declared in linux/inet.h
+
Ok, I played around with this and cleaned up the ip/path codepathes to
be entirely setup which helped the code quite a bit. Also a few other
cleanups and two bugfixes (postive error code returned and missing
path_release) fell out of it. I still don't like what's going on in
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Ok, I played around with this and cleaned up the ip/path codepathes to
be entirely setup which helped the code quite a bit. Also a few other
Thanks for doing this :) . In the middle of running it with our cluster
test - if passed, will repost it. Get your signed-off
Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday January 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've implemented two new NFSD procfs files:
o /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_ip
o /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_filesystem
They are intended to allow admin or user mode script to release NLM
locks based on either a path name or a server
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+/* cluster failover support */
+
+typedef struct {
+ int cmd;
+ int stat;
+ int gp;
+ void*datap;
+} nlm_fo_cmd;
please don't introduce typedefs for struct types.
I don't do much community version of linux code so its
On Monday January 7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've implemented two new NFSD procfs files:
o /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_ip
o /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_filesystem
They are intended to allow admin or user mode script to release NLM
locks based on either a path name or a server in-bound ip address
33 matches
Mail list logo
