Zach Brown wrote:
On Jun 27, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Hi Zach,
One of our perf. team ran into this while doing some runs.
I didn't see anything obvious - it looks like we converted
async IO to synchronous one. I didn't spend much time digging
around.
It looks pretty bad
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:30:27PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> EINVAL is fine by me, just so long as its not EAGAIN then it gets my
> blessing :-)
OK. I've changed the error return, in both the NFS and GFS2 cases, did
some minor cleanup and commenting while I was at it, and pushed the
resul
On Jun 27, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Hi Zach,
One of our perf. team ran into this while doing some runs.
I didn't see anything obvious - it looks like we converted
async IO to synchronous one. I didn't spend much time digging
around.
It looks pretty bad, a *shouldn't happen*
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 17:39 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:16:19PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
> > First, there is already some support to disable leases for NFS mounted
> > file systems in -mm, I think.
>
> Oops, sorry; my fault for not checking -mm before sendin
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:16:19PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
> First, there is already some support to disable leases for NFS mounted
> file systems in -mm, I think.
Oops, sorry; my fault for not checking -mm before sending
> Are you planning on removing it?
I'd rather do that, yes. Any
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As Peter Staubach says elsewhere
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118113649526444&w=2):
The problem is that some file system such as NFSv2 and NFSv3 do
not have sufficient support to be able to support leases correctly.
In
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:50:04 -0400
Mingming Caoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the ext4 patch queue is in good shape now.
Which ext4 patches are you intending to merge into 2.6.23?
Please send all those out to lkml for review?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As Peter Staubach says elsewhere
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118113649526444&w=2):
> The problem is that some file system such as NFSv2 and NFSv3 do
> not have sufficient support to be able to support leases correctly.
> In particular for these tw
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Currently leases are only kept locally, so there's no way for a distributed
filesystem to enforce them against multiple clients. We're particularly
interested in the case of nfsd exporting a cluster filesystem, in which
case nfsd needs cluster-coherent le
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We've been using the convention that vfs_foo is the function that calls
a filesystem-specific foo method if it exists, or falls back on a
generic method if it doesn't.
So rename setlease to vfs_setlease, and __setlease to setlease. Keep
setlease exported
From: Marc Eshel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Since gfs2 can't prevent conflicting opens or leases on other nodes, we
probably shouldn't allow it to give out leases at all.
Put the newly defined lease operation into use in gfs2 by turning off
lease, unless we're using the "nolock' locking module (in which
Eventually we want to be able to support NFSv4 delegations for cluster
filesystem exports. We implement NFSv4 delegations using leases. So to
make this work, we need leases to be passed down to the filesystem, so
that a cluster filesystem can enforce leases correctly across all nodes.
The follow
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Share more code between setlease (used by nfsd) and fcntl.
Also some minor cleanup.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/locks.c | 30 ++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bring lease exports into line with conventions for posix locks:
setlease() should be exported so filesystems can use it to implement
their lease methods.
vfs_setlease() need only be GPL-exported since only nfsd
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:29:21AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >In any case, the plan is to push all of the core bits into Linus tree
> >for 2.6.22 once it opens up, which should be Real Soon Now, it looks
> >like.
>
> Presumably you mean 2.6.23.
Yes, sorry. I meant once Linus releases 2.6.22, a
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:33:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Please let us know what you think of Mingming's suggestion of posting
all the fallocate patches including the ext4 ones as incremental ones
against the -mm.
I think Mingming was asking that Ted move the
Theodore Tso wrote:
I don't think we have a problem here. What we have now is fine, and
It's fine for ext4, but not the wider world. This is a common problem
created by parallel development when code dependencies exist.
In any case, the plan is to push all of the core bits into Linus tre
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:33:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Please let us know what you think of Mingming's suggestion of posting
> > all the fallocate patches including the ext4 ones as incremental ones
> > against the -mm.
>
> I think Mingming was asking that Ted move the current quilt tr
From: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/inode.c | 30 --
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/inode.c b/fs/unionfs/in
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c |6 --
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
index 6d87426..8527ac6 100644
--- a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
+++ b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.
From: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/commonfops.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c b/fs/unionfs/commonfops.c
inde
From: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/unionfs/inode.c |5 +
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/unionfs/inode.c b/fs/unionfs/inode.c
index f946b33..a86da
The following patches consist of mostly cleanups and bug fixes of the
Unionfs code.
As before, there is a git repo at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jsipek/unionfs.git
(master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jsipek/unionfs.git)
There are 5 new commits:
Erez Zadok (4):
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:33:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I think Mingming was asking that Ted move the current quilt tree into git,
> presumably because she's working off git.
>
> I'm not sure what to do, really. The core kernel patches need to be in
> Ted's tree for testing but that'll c
24 matches
Mail list logo
