* [patch 6/9] dlm: clear recovery flags
@ 2005-06-02 8:03 David Teigland
2005-06-02 8:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2005-06-02 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: clear-recovery-flags.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]
At the start of recovery, all the recovery flags are cleared from the
previous recovery. Two of them weren't being cleared.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Index: linux/drivers/dlm/member.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/dlm/member.c 2005-06-02 12:28:30.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/drivers/dlm/member.c 2005-06-02 13:07:46.060566696 +0800
@@ -276,6 +276,8 @@
*/
dlm_recoverd_suspend(ls);
+ clear_bit(LSFL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
+ clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
clear_bit(LSFL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
clear_bit(LSFL_NODES_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 6/9] dlm: clear recovery flags
2005-06-02 8:03 [patch 6/9] dlm: clear recovery flags David Teigland
@ 2005-06-02 8:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-06-02 9:30 ` David Teigland
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2005-06-02 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Teigland; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:03 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> plain text document attachment (clear-recovery-flags.patch)
> At the start of recovery, all the recovery flags are cleared from the
> previous recovery. Two of them weren't being cleared.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
>
> Index: linux/drivers/dlm/member.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/dlm/member.c 2005-06-02 12:28:30.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/drivers/dlm/member.c 2005-06-02 13:07:46.060566696 +0800
> @@ -276,6 +276,8 @@
> */
>
> dlm_recoverd_suspend(ls);
> + clear_bit(LSFL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> + clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> clear_bit(LSFL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> clear_bit(LSFL_NODES_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
btw do these need to be atomic? right now these are atomic ops and thus
very expensive... you might want to switch to nonatomic variants if
that's not needed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 6/9] dlm: clear recovery flags
2005-06-02 8:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2005-06-02 9:30 ` David Teigland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2005-06-02 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:19:20AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:03 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> > + clear_bit(LSFL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> > + clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> > clear_bit(LSFL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> > clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
> > clear_bit(LSFL_NODES_VALID, &ls->ls_flags);
>
> btw do these need to be atomic? right now these are atomic ops and thus
> very expensive... you might want to switch to nonatomic variants if
> that's not needed.
No they don't, I didn't know about the __ non-atomics. I'll go through
and switch, thanks.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-06-02 9:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-06-02 8:03 [patch 6/9] dlm: clear recovery flags David Teigland
2005-06-02 8:19 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-06-02 9:30 ` David Teigland
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox