[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Nbd] [patch] Re: nbd timeout on debian jessie, patch testing



Hi,

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:53:07PM +0100, Hermann Lauer wrote:
> Dear Markus,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:56:15PM +0200, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> > >>>2015-01-13 21:26 GMT+02:00 Paul Clements <paul.cleme...@...856...>:
> > >>>> - what are critical bugs or important issues requiring work, if there are
> > >>>> any.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a network timeout issue, which is probably one of the more
> > >>> important fixes to get in:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=770479
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Looking at the proposed patch, it looks quite smart, and looking good
> > >>as long as it is tested. Going to test that ASAP.
> > >
> > > I tested it successfully on a jessie kernel in December,
> > > what was your result ?
> 
> tested the mentioned patch (inluded below) with vanilla 3.19 and it works as
> expected - i.e. breaking a raid1 within the specified timeout of 5s instead of
> hanging until the disconnected network is reconnecting again.
> 
> > Sorry, I haven't tested it personally.
> 
> So now:
> Tested-By: Hermann Lauer <Hermann.Lauer@...1489...> 

First of all thanks for testing this. Unfortunately the included patch
is missing a Signed-off-by tag (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches), so
I didn't have a deeper look into it.
However, I have a testsetup now to reproduce the timeout issues and I
see the problem. I also started looking at the timeout patch from 2013.

@Michal: Maybe you are interested to resend the patch with your
signed-off-by so we can discuss it?

Best Regards,

Markus

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: