Success! Was: [PATCH 0/4] 2.6.21-rc7 NFS writes: fix a series of issues

[florin@iucha.net (Florin Iucha)]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > I'm far from the machine right now, so I will do some more tests
> > > tonight, but right now, the new patchset is not good.  What is the
> > > difference between reverting the patch you sent yesterday and your
> > > current fifth patch?  I assume the other four are identical, right?
> > 
> > The only difference is the way in which we handle retries of an NFSv4
> > request: the new patch disconnects if and only if a timeout has
> > occurred, or the server sends us garbage.
> 
> I have to mention that I rebased to the head of the tree
> (895e1fc7226e6732bc77138955b6c7dfa279f57a) before applying your
> patches, in order to test what I expect the official tree to be.
> 
> Tonight I'll test this kernel once more, then go back to 21-rc7 and
> apply your 5 patches and re-test.

It passed big-copy, and the copy run from the gnome-session while I
did my morning light browsing, email reading, etc.

kernel:
   895e1fc7226e6732bc77138955b6c7dfa279f57a

patches:
   linux-2.6.21-001-cleanup_unstable_write.dif
   linux-2.6.21-002-defer_clearing_pg_writeback.dif
   linux-2.6.21-003-fix_desynchronised_ncommit.dif
   linux-2.6.21-004-fix_nfs_set_page_dirty.dif
   linux-2.6.21-005-fix_nfsv4_resend.dif

Regards,
florin

-- 
Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
      http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature