Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PULL REQUEST] nfsd changes for 4.15 | From | Chuck Lever <> | Date | Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:03:45 -0500 |
| |
> On Nov 18, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:40 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> 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 <chuck.lever@oracle.com> AuthorDate: Fri Oct 20 10:35:18 2017 -0400 Commit: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com> CommitDate: Fri Nov 17 16:43:44 2017 -0500
SUNRPC: Fix parsing failure in trace points with XIDs
mount.nf-11159 8.... 905.248380: xprt_transmit: [FAILED TO PARSE] xid=351291440 status=0 addr=192.168.2.5 port=20049 mount.nf-11159 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=192.168.2.5 port=20049 kworker/-1591 1.... 905.248423: xprt_complete_rqst: [FAILED TO PARSE] xid=351291440 status=24 addr=192.168.2.5 port=20049 Byte swapping is not available during trace-cmd report. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com>
conflicted with
commit e9d4bf219c83d09579bc62512fea2ca10f025d93 Author: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> AuthorDate: Tue Oct 10 17:31:42 2017 -0400 Commit: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> 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 <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
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
| |