[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <64bb37e0711182315s1d159c80h11811acb07566f03@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:15:48 +0100
From: "Torsten Kaiser" <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>
To: "Trond Myklebust" <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Kamalesh Babulal" <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, "Andy Whitcroft" <apw@...dowen.org>,
"Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Jan Blunck" <jblunck@...e.de>, steved@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.24-rc2-mm1 - kernel bug on nfs v4
On Nov 18, 2007 8:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 19:44 +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > NFSv2/3 and NFSv4 share the same dentry_iput and so share the same
> > unlink and sillyrename logic.
> > But they do not share nfs_init_server()!
> >
> > I wonder why this doesn't blow up more violently, but only hangs...
> >
> > But as I don't know if it is correct to add the workqueue
> > initialization to nfs4_init_server() or remove the nfs_sb_active /
> > nfs_sb_deactive for the NFSv4 case, I can't offer a patch to fix this.
> >
> > Torsten
>
> I had already fixed that one in my own stack. Attached are the 3 patches
> that I've got. 1 from SteveD, 2 fixes.
>
Moving the init_waitqueue_head() like patch
linux-2.6.24-006-fix_to_fix_sillyrename_bug_on_umount.dif and applying
linux-2.6.24-007-fix_nfs_free_unlinkdata.dif lets my testcase work.
Also lockdep no longer complains about the non-static key.
Torsten
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists