Re: [PATCH 32/41] staging: lustre: llite: restart short read/write for normal IO
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Wed Oct 12 2016 - 02:08:05 EST
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:22:35AM +0100, James Simmons wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:28:28PM -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > From: Bobi Jam <bobijam.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > If normal IO got short read/write, we'd restart the IO from where
> > > we've accomplished until we meet EOF or error happens.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bobi Jam <bobijam.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xiong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6389
> > > Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/14123
> > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: James Simmons <jsimmons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/fail.c | 1 +
> > > .../staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_support.h | 2 +
> > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/file.c | 41 ++++++++++++--------
> > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/vvp_io.c | 19 ++++++++-
> > > 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > Due to other changes in the filesystem tree, this patch no longer
> > applies :(
> > Can you rebase it and resend?
> How long will you be accepting patches to merge for? If its going
> to be a few weeks like to just include the missing two patches with
> the next batch.
I don't understand the question. I always accept patches, no need to
not send them, I'll queue them up to the proper branches as needed. So
what do you mean here?
> Another issue I need to look at is the IB changes. That's going to
> require some heavy surgery to the ko2iblnd driver so its going to
> take time for me to port this to the new RDMA RW api. That will
> need to be push to linus so ko2iblnd can work with the 4.9 tree
> if that is okay with you.
Sure, send the patches, but maybe it is a 4.10 thing if it's too much