The patch that wouldn't die
Subsystems (2)
Boaz, try to remain calm.
Trond, please remove this patch from your nfs-for-next branch. I can send a revert patch if you like.
Uh-oh, I see it's been sent to stable too.
commit f0574a5592deb1f99fa583c525d01e7fa131f430
Author: Peng Tao <[email protected]> Date: Thu Sep 22 21:50:13 2011 -0400
pnfsblock: init pg_bsize properly
pg_bsize is server->wsize/rsize by default. We would want to use the lseg length.
Explanation follows:
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:22:45 -0400
From: Jim Rees <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] pnfsblock: init pg_bsize properly
To: Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>, [email protected],
peter honeyman <[email protected]>
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Quoted 7 lines · Jim Rees
From: Peng Tao <[email protected]>
pg_bsizeis server->wsize/rsize by default. We would want to use the lseg length.Signed-off-by Peng Tao <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Jim Rees <[email protected]>
If you want to get lazy about this patch and take the easy way out. The least you can do is supply the same fix to that other place that has the same bug.
This is not nice. You have identified a deficiency in the generic layer, You know that objects would have the same bug, (because I told you) and you just don't care. I have spent plenty of times slaving over blocks code when changing or fixing generic layer. (And Benny even more then me)
And when you will actually send a patch that does exactly the same in two places, which access only generic members, you might see that it might be better to fix it in a single place at the generic layer.
NACK. I'm ok with getting lazy like below, but only if you also add the same code to objio_osd.c
Sorry, I sent the wrong patch. Trond, please drop this one.
Fixed. I haven't yet cut an official nfs-for-3.2, so I've just rebased nfs-for-next and removed that particular patch.
Cheers
Trond
Quoted 59 lines · Jim Rees
Boaz, try to remain calm.
Trond, please remove this patch from your nfs-for-next branch. I can send a revert patch if you like.
Uh-oh, I see it's been sent to stable too.
commit
f0574a5592deb1f99fa583c525d01e7fa131f430Author: Peng Tao <[email protected]> Date: Thu Sep 22 21:50:13 2011 -0400pnfsblock: init
pg_bsizeproperly
pg_bsizeis server->wsize/rsize by default. We would want to use the lseg length.Signed-off-by Peng Tao <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Jim Rees <[email protected]>Cc [email protected] [3.0]Signed-off-by Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>Explanation follows:
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:22:45 -0400
From: Jim Rees <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] pnfsblock: initpg_bsizeproperly
To: Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>, [email protected],
peter honeyman <[email protected]>Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Quoted 7 lines · Jim Rees
From: Peng Tao <[email protected]>
pg_bsizeis server->wsize/rsize by default. We would want to use the lseg length.Signed-off-by Peng Tao <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Jim Rees <[email protected]>If you want to get lazy about this patch and take the easy way out. The least you can do is supply the same fix to that other place that has the same bug.
This is not nice. You have identified a deficiency in the generic layer, You know that objects would have the same bug, (because I told you) and you just don't care. I have spent plenty of times slaving over blocks code when changing or fixing generic layer. (And Benny even more then me)
And when you will actually send a patch that does exactly the same in two places, which access only generic members, you might see that it might be better to fix it in a single place at the generic layer.
NACK. I'm ok with getting lazy like below, but only if you also add the same code to
objio_osd.cSorry, I sent the wrong patch. Trond, please drop this one.
Signature · 6 lines
Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp [email protected] www.netapp.com