[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429120827.GI8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:08:28 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tigran aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 01:17:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Questions remains: was this intentional? It breaks existing userspace and should therefore be considered a regression - right? On the other hand, it will never be a problem for RHEL-4/5 kernels, unless the change in 2.6.29 gets backported. Any ideas?
> > >
> > > afaik that was unintentional and was probably a mistake.
> > >
> > > I wonder how we did that.
> >
> > <paste>
> > > [hotplug]# grep sysfs /proc/mounts
> > > none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
> > > /sys /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0
> >
> > ___(I wonder how the heck that is accomplished)
>
> Beats me. I'm not seeing likely changes in fs/proc/base.c or around
> show_mountinfo(). Maybe sysfs broke in an ingenious way. (hopefully
> cc's viro).
Er... Somebody mounting sysfs twice? From some init script and from
/etc/fstab, perhaps? That definitely looks like two mount(2) had to
have been done to cause that...
--
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