David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:55:26PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:36:40PM +0000, David O'Brien wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:46:32AM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote: >>> >>>>The SMP FFS/VFS patch has undergone several iterations and lots of serious >>>>testing over the past few weeks. Many people, especially Peter Holm, have >>>>sent me good bug reports. It's currently running on the port build >>>>cluster and I have done extended load testing in small memory >>>>configurations. What this means is, after I get back from vacation, it's >>>>going to go into the tree. If you don't test it now, you will be in a few >>>>weeks. :-) >>>> >>>>http://www.chesapeake.net/~jroberson/smpffs.diff >>> >>> >>>Hi Jeff, >>> >>>Can you please commit this ASAP? It seems to be working very well. >> >>I've reported two repeatable panics in the most recent version. >>There's clearly some more work that needs to be done first. > > > Jeff, > > Mentioned there was one outstanding bug that was reported to him. BUT > that he could commit his patchset but still always depend on GIANT. That > way we would get fixes to the bugs he found, and Jeff could still work on > the remaining ?locking? issue. > The biggest thing that concerns me about his work in not the Giant switch on VFS, it's the 'fixes' that he's made to UFS and SoftUpdates that cannot be turned off via a sysctl. Again, his lack of responsivness here means that it's hard to judge the safety of this work. ScottReceived on Tue Jan 11 2005 - 22:05:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:26 UTC