On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 09:20 -0400, Dan Halbert wrote: > Ian Kent wrote: > > > > Well, if we can't confirm the problem and resolution then I have no case > > to put for an update. > > > > No-one has volunteered to try the patches I referred to in this thread > > and that's why I haven't posted them, so how about it, someone? > > Ian (& Greg & Jeff), > > Maybe there's a bit of cross-purpose communication here. In an earlier > message, Jeff said he had reproduced the problem by using exactly our > kernel (2.6.9-55.0.9.ELsmp x86_64), and that the problem did NOT happen > with a later kernel he had (which was the one he originally tried). See > http://linux.kernel.org/pipermail/autofs/2007-October/004133.html. > > So I think Jeff has confirmed the problem and resolution. Am I telling > you something you already know?
Well, to be honest, I had forgotten about that comment, but that's partly good. The curious thing is, of course, is hitting this problem is quite odd because it shouldn't be that prone to occur. > > Jeff said his successful test kernel has patches for bug 248126. Comment > #24 in that bug says the patch was put in 2.6.9-55.0.7. So I'd expect > the patch to be in 2.6.9-55.0.9 and for the problem to be fixed already. > Since it isn't fixed, either the patch was pulled between .7 and .9, or > the fix is more complicated than that single patch. Also, the bug > comments refer to several different patch sets and other bugs, so it's > not clear to me which patches Jeff actually has in his test kernel. I mentioned before (although I may not have been clear on exactly what ) that the patch for the mount/expire race had been reverted in 2.6.9-55.0.9 and the patches in the bug Jeff referred to are corrections to that patch. Anyway, the story just gets worse because there's another patch that depends on these that should also be included and isn't. To this end I've built a RHEL4 kernel with all the patches that "should" be included. If your interested in testing it we just need to find a way to get it to you. It would be good to get some clear information on this because several people are having, and will continue to have (including possibly RHEL5), odd little problems that end up being quite serious and I have no sold case to lobby for inclusion of the reverted or missing patches. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
