From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964924AbXBLN5x (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:57:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964925AbXBLN5x (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:57:53 -0500 Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org ([213.186.44.138]:4454 "EHLO dspnet.fr.eu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964924AbXBLN5w (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:57:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:57:49 +0100 From: Olivier Galibert To: Ian Kent Cc: "Hack inc." , autofs@linux.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Re: [autofs] Bad race condition in the new autofs protocol somewhere Message-ID: <20070212135749.GA1681@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert , Ian Kent , "Hack inc." , autofs@linux.kernel.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1171262594.18376.13.camel@raven.themaw.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 :-) OG.