From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:51518 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754256AbcAVRIl (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:08:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:08:38 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Mike Marshall Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: Orangefs ABI documentation Message-ID: <20160122170838.GZ17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160122071147.GY17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:59:40AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > Hi Al... > > I moved a tiny bit of your work around so it would compile, but I booted a > kernel from it, and ran some tests, it seems to work OK... doing this > work from home makes me remember writing cobol programs on a > silent 700... my co-workers are helping me look at > wait_for_cancellation_downcall... we recently made some > improvements there based on some problems we were > having in production with our out-of-tree Frankenstein > module... I'm glad you are also looking there. BTW, what should happen to requests that got a buggered response in orangefs_devreq_write_iter()? As it is, you just free them and to hell with whatever might've been waiting on them; that's easy to fix, but what about the submitter? Should we let it time out/simulate an error properly returned by daemon/something else?