[Ocfs2-devel] ocfs2 patches reviewing request

[Ocfs2-devel] ocfs2 patches reviewing request

[Changwei Ge]

Hi list,


I have two ocfs2 patches[1] queued in -mm tree for about 5 months.

Does anyone can help review them?

Maybe, @Joseph do you have some time?

Any comments, advise and questions will be welcomed.

Hopefully, we can merge them into mainline during next merge window to 
close the two issues.


Thanks,

Changwei


[1]:

ocfs2: wait for recovering done after direct unlock request

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3D2aaebca745e4cc7c49401374ba1d430ec1fbfe29&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=oygHwA9iyu7kfVMsh1RTKlbgy6A9FCW8sum6cdQy5B4&s=34TJQQ9aFTdpVxd4ABm_kdSQ3djpX2m9_7Bhvsj4zWs&e= 

ocfs2: checkpoint appending truncate log transaction before flushing

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3Dabd1a359d33331ae21cf880d579215dc793d925c&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=oygHwA9iyu7kfVMsh1RTKlbgy6A9FCW8sum6cdQy5B4&s=oiMtLNADvCqtacwGcmpke1Pg59CochFnTwAx4wHJ9hY&e= 

[Ocfs2-devel] ocfs2 patches reviewing request

[Joseph Qi]

On 19/9/11 11:03, Changwei Ge wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> 
> I have two ocfs2 patches[1] queued in -mm tree for about 5 months.
> 
> Does anyone can help review them?
> 
> Maybe, @Joseph do you have some time?>
Sure, I'll review these two patches ASAP.
Hopefully I can finish it at this weekend.

Thanks,
Joseph
 
> Any comments, advise and questions will be welcomed.
> 
> Hopefully, we can merge them into mainline during next merge window to close the two issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Changwei
> 
> 
> [1]:
> 
> ocfs2: wait for recovering done after direct unlock request
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3D2aaebca745e4cc7c49401374ba1d430ec1fbfe29&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=Xjs6wwBtTlH2b26BqOg5CC_cKSyqWW4G1EOa3omCrJ0&s=5TDIRfxDda7paSH28yR-3GvJOr_TUXd9faWUf_cyXM4&e= 
> 
> ocfs2: checkpoint appending truncate log transaction before flushing
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3Dabd1a359d33331ae21cf880d579215dc793d925c&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=Xjs6wwBtTlH2b26BqOg5CC_cKSyqWW4G1EOa3omCrJ0&s=cv_91ZWTZ280i8G1sRXMbmASsp_x30YkmEVB_AZCGVo&e= 

[Ocfs2-devel] ocfs2 patches reviewing request

[Joseph Qi]

Hi Changwei,

On 19/9/11 11:03, Changwei Ge wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> 
> I have two ocfs2 patches[1] queued in -mm tree for about 5 months.
> 
> Does anyone can help review them?
> 
> Maybe, @Joseph do you have some time?
> 
> Any comments, advise and questions will be welcomed.
> 
> Hopefully, we can merge them into mainline during next merge window to close the two issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Changwei
> 
> 
> [1]:
> 
> ocfs2: wait for recovering done after direct unlock request
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3D2aaebca745e4cc7c49401374ba1d430ec1fbfe29&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=T0aG7brUdqan4DNdCX0lbYWyluQ-40huKHFjiJHj92M&s=PDEWmVvKNnV3CI5lv7h3cgjBgwSeQBU8KITiRxCLeWs&e= 
> 
I've gone through the thread, it seems that you agreed on a better
solution after discussed with Jun?


> ocfs2: checkpoint appending truncate log transaction before flushing
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3Dabd1a359d33331ae21cf880d579215dc793d925c&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=T0aG7brUdqan4DNdCX0lbYWyluQ-40huKHFjiJHj92M&s=DRSP_bnazwp-478ALDeZ9s8ehfUPuUZ4ObIJCvsMdh0&e= 
This looks good to me.
So should I give my reviewed-by on the original thread, or you'll start a
new one?

Thanks,
Joseph

[Ocfs2-devel] ocfs2 patches reviewing request

[Changwei Ge]

Hi Joseph,

On 2019/9/15 9:44 ??, Joseph Qi wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
> 
> On 19/9/11 11:03, Changwei Ge wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>>
>> I have two ocfs2 patches[1] queued in -mm tree for about 5 months.
>>
>> Does anyone can help review them?
>>
>> Maybe, @Joseph do you have some time?
>>
>> Any comments, advise and questions will be welcomed.
>>
>> Hopefully, we can merge them into mainline during next merge window to close the two issues.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Changwei
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>>
>> ocfs2: wait for recovering done after direct unlock request
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3D2aaebca745e4cc7c49401374ba1d430ec1fbfe29&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=_t_Of2eXInVn3n8f73nWj6pDN3XgYy0cqf2-rhjXSIo&s=JApCD55Np6-m_ICRyaHBbie44eldDkeLAEBaoAgS0o0&e= 
>>
> I've gone through the thread, it seems that you agreed on a better
> solution after discussed with Jun?

I tried the way as Jun suggested, but after that, IMO, adding a point of 
calculating dlm lock resource usage in 
`dlm_finish_local_lockres_recovery()` might make related code subtle. 
Although Jun's way can run _dlm unlock_ and _dlm recovery_ 
asynchronously, but the issue I reported was a corner case during 
unmounting ocfs2 from different nodes together. So performance should 
not be our biggest concern. A explicit fix would be my preference. 
Practically, most dlm code's behavior is decided after RECOVERING DONE 
if there is recovering process running.



> 
> 
>> ocfs2: checkpoint appending truncate log transaction before flushing
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__git.cmpxchg.org_cgit.cgi_linux-2Dmmotm.git_commit_-3Fh-3Dv5.3-2Drc6-2Dmmotm-2D2019-2D08-2D27-2D20-2D39-26id-3Dabd1a359d33331ae21cf880d579215dc793d925c&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=C7gAd4uDxlAvTdc0vmU6X8CMk6L2iDY8-HD0qT6Fo7Y&m=_t_Of2eXInVn3n8f73nWj6pDN3XgYy0cqf2-rhjXSIo&s=UmlDvPwCLbXPnqDcbXZ_C8ihvRTVwRf3_f_KU5tAksA&e= 
> This looks good to me.
> So should I give my reviewed-by on the original thread, or you'll start a
> new one?

Adding your feedback at my original thread would be fine. :-)

Thanks,
Changwei

> 
> Thanks,
> Joseph
>