On 07/06/2010 05:31 PM, Fred Isaman wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
<snip>
>> @@ -1547,9 +1548,8 @@ pnfs_writepages(struct nfs_write_data *wdata, int how)
>> numpages = nfs_page_array_len(args->pgbase, args->count);
>>
>> dprintk("%s: Calling layout driver (how %d) write with %d pages\n",
>> - __func__,
>> - how,
>> - numpages);
>> + __func__, how, numpages);
>> +
>> if (!pnfs_use_rpc(nfss))
>> wdata->pdata.pnfsflags |= PNFS_NO_RPC;
>
> Just curious, what branch is this based on? The above code was removed in the pnfs-submit branches a while ago.
>
> Other than that, looks good.
>
It's over pnfs-all-latest because for me I need the bigger tree for actually testing
my code. So more work for Benny when squashing to sort out the hunks.
But if it was removed what patch brings it back, this is odd. Benny?
> Fred
>
Boaz
On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 05:31 PM, Fred Isaman wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>> @@ -1547,9 +1548,8 @@ pnfs_writepages(struct nfs_write_data *wdata, int how)
>>> numpages = nfs_page_array_len(args->pgbase, args->count);
>>>
>>> dprintk("%s: Calling layout driver (how %d) write with %d pages\n",
>>> - __func__,
>>> - how,
>>> - numpages);
>>> + __func__, how, numpages);
>>> +
>>> if (!pnfs_use_rpc(nfss))
>>> wdata->pdata.pnfsflags |= PNFS_NO_RPC;
>>
>> Just curious, what branch is this based on? The above code was removed in the pnfs-submit branches a while ago.
>>
>> Other than that, looks good.
>>
>
> It's over pnfs-all-latest because for me I need the bigger tree for actually testing
> my code. So more work for Benny when squashing to sort out the hunks.
>
> But if it was removed what patch brings it back, this is odd. Benny?
No, that makes sense then. It is removed in pnfs-submit, then the removal patch is immediately reverted.
Fred
>
>> Fred
>>
>
> Boaz