On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Jeff Moyer wrote: > ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] [RFC PATCH]autofs4: hang and proposed fix; Ian > Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds: > > raven> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, William H. Taber wrote: > >> > So the question is, can anyone provide an example of a path that, upon > >> > calling autofs revalidate or lookup with the i_sem held, not be the > >> path > that aquired it? > > raven> So still no counter example! > > >> Any other process calling lookup_one_len on a file in /net. > > raven> I'm afraid this is not an example it's an assertion. "Any other > raven> process" is a little broad I think. You'll need to be more > raven> specific. > > Well, I think we've determined that the reported problem doesn't happen > with any in-tree callers. The question, then, is do you want to fix the > locking problem? Two approaches were presented in this thread. I don't > really like the idea of the hack used by devfs, since it relies on implicit > semantics. I haven't given much thought to the second approach, though > (are we sure it can be made to work?). It may require a good deal of > effort, but if it makes things work properly, it's worth considering. I'm > just not sure where it sits in the list of priorities, as I know you've got > a lot on your plate, Ian.
It appears to me that the unhashed directory approach proposed by Will does not account for directories that exist but don't have current mounts. I will re-read the posts, I expect I missed something, and give it more thought. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
