Return-Path: Received: from cit-hm8-mail01.bmw-carit.de ([212.118.206.84]:25866 "EHLO cit-hm8-gw01.bmw-carit.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755037AbcIZFjB (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 01:39:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFS: Use complete() instead complete_all() To: Anna Schumaker , Daniel Wagner , References: <1474545269-8694-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> CC: Trond Myklebust , From: Daniel Wagner Message-ID: <74468e19-772d-41b8-b7df-c0aa845e52ab@bmw-carit.de> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:33:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Anna, On 09/23/2016 03:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: >> Besides trying to analys all the code paths to the wait_for_completion() >> call and convince myself that there is only one waiter, I also run >> a few tests: >> >> - some fio benchmarks >> - pynfs >> -cthon04 > > Thanks for the patches, and for the extensive testing! I haven't > tried them with xfstests yet, but They look okay to me otherwise. > Assuming I don't see any new failures there I'll plan on adding them > for v4.9. I tried a few tests from xfstests but I was not sure which make sense to run, that's why I went for the more NFS specific tests. I'll see what happens when I run the generic tests from xfstests. Should all of them pass? cheers, daniel