From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757385AbeAHQgH (ORCPT + 1 other); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:36:07 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:51930 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756153AbeAHQgG (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:36:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:36:07 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: James Simmons Cc: NeilBrown , Oleg Drokin , Andreas Dilger , lkml , lustre Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event macros Message-ID: <20180108163607.GA3046@kroah.com> References: <151538168618.23920.8261096424342988792.stgit@noble> <20180108145943.GA5761@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:21:50PM +0000, James Simmons wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:28:13PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > Hi, > > > this is a revised version of the patch series I sent under a similar > > > subject in mid December. > > > Improvements are: > > > - new wait_event_idle* macros are now in include/linux/wait.h which > > > Ack from peterz. > > > - *all* waits are now TASK_IDLE or TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and so don't > > > affect the load average. There is no need to choose whether load > > > is appropriate or not in each case. > > > - all l_wait_event() users are handled so l_wait_event() is > > > removed. The one case I had left out before uses > > > wait_event_idle_exclusive() with and option of using > > > wait_event_idle_exclusive_lifo() is that ever gets approved. > > > > > > I think this set is ready to go. > > > If you only review two patches, please review > > > > > > staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ldlm_completion_ast() > > > and > > > staging: lustre: remove back_to_sleep() > > > > > > as in both of those, the actual behaviour of the current code (as I > > > understand it) doesn't seem to agree with comments/debug message, or > > > just generally looks odd. > > > > This series broke the build, so I'll roll back my tree and drop it. > > > > Please fix it up and resend and test build it first... > > Please don't merge these just yet. They need to be tested first. I don't > want to be in a position where the lustre client is totally not usable > like in the past. That kind of breakage makes no one want to use the > lustre client. We have a test suite for these kinds of changes. Neill do > you know how to test your patches with the test suite? Also I have been > working on several things for the last 4 months to merge upstream. I like > to coordinate with you so we don't step on each others toes. If I don't hear anything for a few weeks, I merge patches. That should be long enough to test... thanks, greg k-h