DLM: dlm patches need review

Hi,

This series of patches (2nd version after previous review on August) is to fix various bugs. This patch set is against the mainline kernel. We'd like reviewed to make sure those changes are fine.

Patch number 01/02/03 were posted on this mailing list.
However, I've modifed 03 to correct a bug that aquires rwlock multiple times. Other than that, there is no changes.

01:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-April/msg00021.html
02:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-August/msg00076.html
03:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-April/msg00023.html

thanks in advance.
-- owa

Hi,

Many thanks for sending the updated patches. Since the merge window is currently open, we are at a good point to look at these, since there is maximum time before the next merge window. Perhaps one way to deal with these patches would be to take the ones that we are most confident in now (of course that could be all of them!) and postpone any that we think might need more review until later. That way it should be easier to review the more complicated patches and we get the benefit of the easier to review patches sooner.

Dave, Bob, does that make sense?

Steve.

Yes, they look good to me, I expect to push most or all of them into the next branch by the end of the week. If questions remain on any individual patches, please post or let me know.

The patches are now here for testing
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git/log/?h=next

Dave

----- Original Message -----

| Hi,
| 
| 
| On 12/09/17 09:54, tsutomu.owa at toshiba.co.jp wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > This series of patches (2nd version after previous review on August) is to
| > fix various bugs.  This patch set is against the mainline kernel.
| > We'd like reviewed to make sure those changes are fine.
| >
| > Patch number 01/02/03 were posted on this mailing list.
| > However, I've modifed 03 to correct a bug that aquires rwlock multiple
| > times.
| > Other than that, there is no changes.
| >
| > 01:
| > https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-April/msg00021.html
| > 02:
| > https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-August/msg00076.html
| > 03:
| > https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-April/msg00023.html
| >
| > thanks in advance.
| > -- owa
| >
| >
| 
| Many thanks for sending the updated patches. Since the merge window is
| currently open, we are at a good point to look at these, since there is
| maximum time before the next merge window. Perhaps one way to deal with
| these patches would be to take the ones that we are most confident in
| now (of course that could be all of them!) and postpone any that we
| think might need more review until later. That way it should be easier
| to review the more complicated patches and we get the benefit of the
| easier to review patches sooner.
| 
| Dave, Bob, does that make sense?
| 
| Steve.

Hi,

Yes, sounds okay to me.

Bob Peterson

----- Original Message -----

| Hi,
| 
| This series of patches (2nd version after previous review on August) is to
| fix various bugs.  This patch set is against the mainline kernel.
| We'd like reviewed to make sure those changes are fine.
| 
| Patch number 01/02/03 were posted on this mailing list.
| However, I've modifed 03 to correct a bug that aquires rwlock multiple times.
| Other than that, there is no changes.
| 
| 01:
| https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-April/msg00021.html
| 02:
| https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-August/msg00076.html
| 03:
| https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2017-April/msg00023.html
| 
| thanks in advance.
| -- owa
| 
| 
| 

Hi,

This patch set looks okay to me.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File System