Lustre devel - Jan 2007 - [Bug 11147] more sanity test failures in 1.6 beta

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11147



Created an attachment (id=9463)
Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
 --> (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=9463&action=view)
fix event queue still busy

Was missing the mgc_precleanup function, which left a ldlm reference up.

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11147



Created an attachment (id=9466)
Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
 --> (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=9466&action=view)
patch to remove excessive debug output

This patch stops the debug in ptllnd_wait() from being verbose when the timeout

is -ve (i.e. forever) and also uses the proper way to specify
"infinite" to
PtlEQPoll().  The verbose debug was added when we were paranoid about the
catamount ptllnd sleeping forever on RedStorm and it shouldn''t really
have
stayed like that.  

I''ve not done anything about overflowing timeouts.  ptllnd_wait()
interprets
any
-ve timeout as infinite and you could consider a timeout of 1000000000 seconds
as damn near infinite, so the fact that the conversion to milliseconds _does_
change it effectively to infinite is a bit of a gnat.

However I _do_ think someone should answer the following questions
authoritatively...

1. Why is b1_5''s __l_wait_event() requesting a timeout of 1000000000
seconds?


2. Why is __l_wait_event() so different in b1_5 and b1_4?

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11147

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|isaac@clusterfs.com         |nathan@clusterfs.com
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


Created an attachment (id=9494)
Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
 --> (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=9494&action=view)
update liblustre __l_wait_event from b1_4

looks like the signin from bug 10452 lost the lustre_lib.h portion during the
Great Header Migration of ''06.	The rest of the patch is in b1_5.