From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933014AbXBMAwB (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:52:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933020AbXBMAwB (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:52:01 -0500 Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:52469 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933014AbXBMAwA (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:52:00 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: KVJYSTKsC4WUvco8jmHw3Nj99ZNsZ/5XkXEghmEIDWfi 1171327916 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Re: [autofs] Bad race condition in the new autofs protocol somewhere From: Ian Kent To: Olivier Galibert Cc: "Hack inc." , autofs@linux.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070212135749.GA1681@dspnet.fr.eu.org> References: <20070207173414.GA64492@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <1170871661.3415.36.camel@raven.themaw.net> <20070207181817.GA75717@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <1170901990.3383.18.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1171262594.18376.13.camel@raven.themaw.net> <20070212135749.GA1681@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:52:39 +0900 Message-Id: <1171327959.3377.3.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 (2.8.0-32.el5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 14:57 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:43:14PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 11:33 +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 19:18 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:07:41AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > It may be better to update to a later kernel so I don't have to port the > > > > > patch to several different kernels. Is that possible? > > > > > > > > Sure, 2.6.20 or -git? > > > > > > 2.6.20 has all the patches I've proposed so far except for the one we're > > > working on so that would be best for me. > > > > > > Seems there may still be a problem with the patch so I'll let you know > > > what's happening as soon as I can. > > > > I think I'm just about done. > > > > Could you try using the two patches here against 2.6.20 please: > > The patch works beautifully, no more failures with my test rig, until > the point where the kernel crashes. Since the crashes happen without > the patch too, you're off the hook, but that means I can't deploy it > for harsher testing yet. > > No wonder Dave Jones is prudent about updating kernels in fc :-) Indeed. Which kernel can you use? I believe that 2200 had another problem so can you use an fc5 kernel later than that? Ian