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
> > rea
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 gran
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 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
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, 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 proble
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
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 t
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. Li
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 c
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, n
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
is
12 matches
Mail list logo