Return-Path: Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.14.81]:58628 "EHLO hackers.mr.itd.umich.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755047Ab1JCMnJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:43:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:43:05 -0400 From: Jim Rees To: Boaz Harrosh Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, peter honeyman Subject: Re: Block layout status Message-ID: <20111003124305.GA657@umich.edu> References: <20110929165253.GC3724@umich.edu> <4E897E57.2000309@panasas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4E897E57.2000309@panasas.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Boaz Harrosh wrote: On 09/29/2011 07:52 PM, Jim Rees wrote: > Since the call doesn't seem to be happening, here's my status. > > On 16 Sep I sent these bug fixes to Trond for 3.1: > > Jim Rees (2): > pnfsblock: fix size of upcall message > pnfsblock: fix return code confusion > Peng Tao (3): > pnfsblock: fix NULL pointer dereference > pnfsblock: fix writeback deadlock > pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put > > These are the ones I think are important enough, and low enough risk to > anyone else, that they should be considered for 3.1 even though it's late in > the release cycle. They have not shown up upstream. Trond? > > On 22 Sep I sent these to Trond for 3.2. I believe these are all in Benny's > tree now (sorry about that, Benny): > > Jim Rees (2): > pnfsblock: fix return code confusion > pnfsblock: fix size of upcall message > Peng Tao (8): > SUNRPC/NFS: make rpc pipe upcall generic > pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put > pnfs: make _set_lo_fail generic > - pnfsblock: init pg_bsize properly > pnfs: recoalesce when ld write pagelist fails > pnfs: recoalesce when ld read pagelist fails > pnfsblock: fix NULL pointer dereference > pnfsblock: fix writeback deadlock Hi Jim I think this "writeback deadlock" should be sent for current 3.1 since surly it renders pnfsblock unusable. If you feel it has not been tested enough consider submitting it with CC: stable@. Because it should hit 3.1.x eventually. No? (While at it maybe some of the other clear FIXs above as well these that make it unusable) I did send it to Trond (see the first list above). If the patches from the first list don't show up in 3.1 I will send them again with cc: stable.