From: Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@gmail.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute when reclaiming state
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:05:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8904106-2bb4-2fdb-1fdd-fb60ff352531@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161201220632.12754-3-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>
Hi Trond,
On 12/01/2016 05:06 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> We don't need to ask for the change attribute when returning a delegation
> or recovering from a server reboot, and it could actually cause us to
> obtain an incorrect value if we're using a pNFS flavour that requires
> LAYOUTCOMMIT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index b582df89c083..c0628f78ed98 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -226,7 +226,6 @@ static const u32 nfs4_pnfs_open_bitmap[3] = {
>
> static const u32 nfs4_open_noattr_bitmap[3] = {
> FATTR4_WORD0_TYPE
> - | FATTR4_WORD0_CHANGE
Do these patches depend on another patch series? I'm having trouble applying this patch since my tree doesn't have FATTR4_WORD0_CHANGE yet. I'm having trouble with patch 4, too.
Thanks,
Anna
> | FATTR4_WORD0_FILEID,
> };
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-02 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-01 22:06 [PATCH 0/5] Performance optimsations for 4.10 Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] NFSv4: Don't check file access when reclaiming state Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute " Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 3/5] NFSv4: Don't request a GETATTR on open_downgrade Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 4/5] NFSv4: Don't request close-to-open attribute when holding a delegation Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 5/5] NFSv4: Optimise away forced revalidation when we know the attributes are OK Trond Myklebust
2016-12-02 17:05 ` Anna Schumaker [this message]
2016-12-02 17:28 ` [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute when reclaiming state Trond Myklebust
2016-12-02 17:47 ` Anna Schumaker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-10 21:41 [PATCH 0/5] Optimisations for state management Trond Myklebust
2016-11-10 21:41 ` [PATCH 1/5] NFSv4: Don't check file access when reclaiming state Trond Myklebust
2016-11-10 21:41 ` [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute " Trond Myklebust
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f8904106-2bb4-2fdb-1fdd-fb60ff352531@gmail.com \
--to=schumaker.anna@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.