From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:34489 "EHLO mail-lf0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752364AbcBLM0Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:26:16 -0500 Received: by mail-lf0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j78so50601715lfb.1 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 04:26:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160212042757.GP17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160208233535.GC17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160209033203.GE17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160209174049.GG17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160209221623.GI17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160209224050.GJ17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160209231328.GK17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160211004432.GM17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20160212042757.GP17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:26:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Orangefs ABI documentation From: Mike Marshall To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel , Stephen Rothwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I'll get the patches today... I have about five small patches that aren't pushed out to github or kernel.org yet, some cosmetic patches and a couple of things you suggested in mail messages... if they get in a fight with your new patches I'll just ditch them and re-do whichever ones of them are still needed after I've got your new stuff tested. Thanks! -Mike On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:22:40PM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: >> > If there is (or at least supposed to be) something that prevents completions >> > of readdir requests (on unrelated directories, by different processes, etc.) >> > out of order, PLEASE SAY SO. I would really prefer not to have to fight >> > the readdir side of that mess; cancels are already bad enough ;-/ >> >> Hi Al... your ideas sound good to me, I'll try to get you good >> answers on stuff like the above sometime tomorrow... > > OK, this is really, really completely untested, might chew your data, > bugger your dog, etc. OTOH, if it somehow fails to do the above, it > ought to deal with cancels properly. > > Pushed into #orangefs-untested, along with two wait_for_direct_io() fixes > discussed upthread. This is _not_ all - it still needs saner "wait for slot" > logics, switching op->waitq to completion/killing loop in > wait_for_matching_downcall(), etc.