From: Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@gmail.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute when reclaiming state
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:05:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8904106-2bb4-2fdb-1fdd-fb60ff352531@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161201220632.12754-3-trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>
Hi Trond,
On 12/01/2016 05:06 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> We don't need to ask for the change attribute when returning a delegation
> or recovering from a server reboot, and it could actually cause us to
> obtain an incorrect value if we're using a pNFS flavour that requires
> LAYOUTCOMMIT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index b582df89c083..c0628f78ed98 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -226,7 +226,6 @@ static const u32 nfs4_pnfs_open_bitmap[3] = {
>
> static const u32 nfs4_open_noattr_bitmap[3] = {
> FATTR4_WORD0_TYPE
> - | FATTR4_WORD0_CHANGE
Do these patches depend on another patch series? I'm having trouble applying this patch since my tree doesn't have FATTR4_WORD0_CHANGE yet. I'm having trouble with patch 4, too.
Thanks,
Anna
> | FATTR4_WORD0_FILEID,
> };
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-02 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-01 22:06 [PATCH 0/5] Performance optimsations for 4.10 Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] NFSv4: Don't check file access when reclaiming state Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute " Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 3/5] NFSv4: Don't request a GETATTR on open_downgrade Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 4/5] NFSv4: Don't request close-to-open attribute when holding a delegation Trond Myklebust
2016-12-01 22:06 ` [PATCH 5/5] NFSv4: Optimise away forced revalidation when we know the attributes are OK Trond Myklebust
2016-12-02 17:05 ` Anna Schumaker [this message]
2016-12-02 17:28 ` [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute when reclaiming state Trond Myklebust
2016-12-02 17:47 ` Anna Schumaker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-10 21:41 [PATCH 0/5] Optimisations for state management Trond Myklebust
2016-11-10 21:41 ` [PATCH 1/5] NFSv4: Don't check file access when reclaiming state Trond Myklebust
2016-11-10 21:41 ` [PATCH 2/5] NFSv4: Don't ask for the change attribute " Trond Myklebust
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=f8904106-2bb4-2fdb-1fdd-fb60ff352531@gmail.com \
--to=schumaker.anna@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).