On 04/19/2018 04:35 PM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/18/2018 09:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Ugh, that lustre code is disgusting.
>>
>> I thought we were getting rid of it.
>>
>> Anyway, I started looking at why the stack trace is such an incredible
>> mess, with lots of stale
On 04/18/2018 09:37 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh, that lustre code is disgusting.
>
> I thought we were getting rid of it.
>
> Anyway, I started looking at why the stack trace is such an incredible
> mess, with lots of stale entries.
>
> The reason (well, _one_ reason) seems to be
On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ugh, that lustre code is disgusting.
>
> I thought we were getting rid of it.
Lots of people seem to get value out of it. So we're trying to polish
the code to make it less disgusting. This is just a little fall-out.
The smoking gun is
[
Ugh, that lustre code is disgusting.
I thought we were getting rid of it.
Anyway, I started looking at why the stack trace is such an incredible
mess, with lots of stale entries.
The reason (well, _one_ reason) seems to be "ksocknal_startup". It has
a 500-byte stack frame for some
