From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 10/10] gfs2: nfs lock support for gfs2 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:00:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20061206220029.GC25465@fieldses.org> References: <8eb625184e6025f7f3d081dfe0a805abdd62a068.1165380892.git.bfields@citi.umich.edu> <70549752c06e54117024429649fd7aa813f21bec.1165380893.git.bfields@citi.umich.edu> <20061206154951.GB16378@redhat.com> <20061206195722.GH1714@fieldses.org> <20061206205822.GB25322@redhat.com> <20061206212347.GA25465@fieldses.org> <20061206214231.GC25322@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Marc Eshel Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:50319 "EHLO pickle.fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937701AbWLFWAb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:00:31 -0500 To: David Teigland Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061206214231.GC25322@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:42:31PM -0600, David Teigland wrote: > Oh yeah, that's painful, I knew it sounded too easy. Yeah. Well, we could try to teach GFS2 to reliably cancel posix locks. I think that may turn out to be necessary some day anyway. Or we could look at why we're timing out and figure out whether there's something else we should be doing instead in that case. In what situations is the GFS2 lock call likely to take overly long? --b.