On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> Don't mean to be a pain but have you had time to check this?
Not a pain.. too much got in the way this week. I was able to test that
patch both against 5.0.1 with the
autofs-5.0.1-map-update-source-only.patch
and against 5.0.2 and it's good.
Just to show, here's 5.0.2 without those 2 lines patched in2
vbr2-001:/usr/src/packages/SOURCES # ps auxw | grep automount
root 6812 0.7 0.0 28552 7180 ? Ssl 13:59 0:00
automount
root 6935 0.0 0.0 2888 704 pts/1 S+ 14:00 0:00 grep
automount
vbr2-001:/usr/src/packages/SOURCES # wc /proc/mounts; mount | wc ; kill
-HUP 6812; while [ 1 ]; do wc /proc/mounts ; mount | wc; sleep 5; done
6314 37884 730725 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
6314 37884 730725 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
6107 36642 706276 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
5964 35784 689905 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
5833 34998 674567 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
5695 34170 658506 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
5477 32862 633119 /proc/mounts
12 72 441
and on down until all the auto.projects entries are gone... which takes
awhile.
The syslog shows them all being unmounted, unlike 5.0.1 it only shows
the "rmdir lmstat of <path> failed" messages for things that were
actually nfs mounted vs the entire auto.projects tree though.
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Staff IT Engineer-http://www.qualcomm.com
Lisa: "As you know, we've been swimming. And we've developed a taste for it. We
agree that getting our own pool is the way to go. Now before you respond, you
should know that your refusal will result in months and months of..."
Bart, Lisa: "CanwehaveapoolDad? CanwehaveapoolDad? CanwehaveapoolDad?
CanwehaveapoolDad? CanwehaveapoolDad?"
Homer: "I understand. Let us celebrate our agreement with the adding of
chocolate to milk." -- Simpsons
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
