[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PULL REQUEST] nfsd changes for 4.15

> On Nov 18, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, J. Bruce Fields <> wrote:
>> Please pull nfsd changes for 4.15 from:
> Hmm. This had a tracepoint conflict with the nfs client pull.

Guessing you mean:

commit a30ccf1a9eb8c01f37675758f6359a968193d96e
Author: Chuck Lever <>
AuthorDate: Fri Oct 20 10:35:18 2017 -0400
Commit: Anna Schumaker <>
CommitDate: Fri Nov 17 16:43:44 2017 -0500

SUNRPC: Fix parsing failure in trace points with XIDs 8.... 905.248380: xprt_transmit: [FAILED TO PARSE] xid=351291440 status=0 addr= port=20049 8.... 905.248381: rpc_task_sleep: task:6210@1 flags=0e80 state=0005 status=0 timeout=60000 queue=xprt_pending
kworker/-1591 1.... 905.248419: xprt_lookup_rqst: [FAILED TO PARSE] xid=351291440 status=0 addr= port=20049
kworker/-1591 1.... 905.248423: xprt_complete_rqst: [FAILED TO PARSE] xid=351291440 status=24 addr= port=20049

Byte swapping is not available during trace-cmd report.

Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <>
Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <>

conflicted with

commit e9d4bf219c83d09579bc62512fea2ca10f025d93
Author: Trond Myklebust <>
AuthorDate: Tue Oct 10 17:31:42 2017 -0400
Commit: J. Bruce Fields <>
CommitDate: Wed Oct 11 17:08:52 2017 -0400

SUNRPC: Fix tracepoint storage issues with svc_recv and svc_rqst_status

There is no guarantee that either the request or the svc_xprt exist
by the time we get round to printing the trace message.

Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <>

and that you adjusted a30ccf1a9eb8c01f37675758f6359a968193d96e
to eliminate the merge conflict.

At a glance I don't see a problem with the finished result.

I could have separated a30ccf1a9eb8c01f37675758f6359a968193d96e
into a server-side and client-side change.

> The resolution seems obvious and I did it, but I'd like people to
> review the end result but particularly also their workflows, because I
> don't think that conflict was reported anywhere and doesn't seem to
> exist in next-20171115.
> It certainly wasn't mentioned to me in either pull request.
> Were the nfs client changes not in next?
> Tssk.
> Linus

Chuck Lever

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-19 18:04    [W:0.050 / U:1.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site