Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:27:48 -0800 From: Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 9-STABLE -> NFS -> NetAPP: Message-ID: <25D0357F-4E1A-457A-A046-87319864738C@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <860054725.3050415.1360941671689.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <860054725.3050415.1360941671689.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-02-15, at 7:21 AM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: >>=20 > Righto. Thanks jhb and kib for looking at this. >=20 > Btw John, PBDRY still gets set for sleeps in the sys/rpc code. = However, > as far as I can tell, it just sets TDF_SBDRY when it is already set > and seems harmless. (Since this code is supposed to be generic and not > specific to NFS, maybe it should stay that way?) >=20 > Also, since PBDRY on the sleeps sets TDF_SBDRY, I think the above = patch > is ok for stable/9 without your recent head patch. >=20 > Maybe Marc can test the above patch? 'k, not sure what you want me to 'test', but so far, patch has been = applied / live for ~21hrs, and no processes in state T =85
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25D0357F-4E1A-457A-A046-87319864738C>