On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:02AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:26:18 -0500
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:58:59AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:07
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:49:01 -0500 (EST)
david m. richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:02AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:26:18 -0500
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20,
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:26:18 -0500
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:58:59AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:41:57PM -0800, Marc Eshel wrote:
The problem seems to be with
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:54:14PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
Interesting. It's not clear me why the underlying filesystem would make
any difference there. Though now that I look, it looks like fl_grant
really only gets called from dlm code, and that queues up the block for
an immediate grant
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:12:28 -0500
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 03:54:14PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
Interesting. It's not clear me why the underlying filesystem would make
any difference there. Though now that I look, it looks like fl_grant
really only
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:02AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:26:18 -0500
J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:58:59AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:58:59AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:41:57PM -0800, Marc Eshel wrote:
The problem seems to be with the fact that the client and server are
on
the same machine. This test work fine
Hello!
On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:41:57PM -0800, Marc Eshel wrote:
The problem seems to be with the fact that the client and server
are on
the same machine. This test work fine with or without an
underlaying fs
that supports locking when
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:41:57PM -0800, Marc Eshel wrote:
The problem seems to be with the fact that the client and server are on
the same machine. This test work fine with or without an underlaying fs
that supports locking when the client and the server are on a different
machines. Like
Hello!
There is a problem with blocking async posix lock enqueue in
2.6.22 and 2.6.23 kernels.
Lock call to underlying FS is done just fine, but when fl_grant
is called to inform lockd
of succesful granting, nothing happens, and no reply to client is
sent. The end result
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:04:40PM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
There is a problem with blocking async posix lock enqueue in
2.6.22 and 2.6.23 kernels. Lock call to underlying FS is done
just fine, but when fl_grant is called to inform lockd of
succesful granting,
The problem seems to be with the fact that the client and server are on
the same machine. This test work fine with or without an underlaying fs
that supports locking when the client and the server are on a different
machines. Like you said the server is trying to send the grant message to
the
12 matches
Mail list logo