Re: [PATCH 5 v2: 00/19] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event macros

James Simmons
2018-01-08T16:43:54Z

> 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.