On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 11:30 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 18:13 -0700, Jim Carter wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Ian Kent wrote:
> > 
> > > Here are the kernel patches I recommend we use while testing
> > > the submount hang problem.
> > > 
> > > Some are upstream in recent kernels while others address known
> > > problems. They were amde against a 2.6.24 source base but should
> > > apply to earlier kernels. They may not be in thier final state
> > > as testing is still being done.
> > > --snip--
> > > Ian Kent (8):
> > >       autofs4 - fix pending mount race.
> > >       autofs4 - use lookup intent flags to trigger mounts
> > >       autofs4 - don't release directory mutex if called in oz_mode
> > >       autofs4 - use look aside list for lookups
> > >       autofs4 - don't make expiring dentry negative
> > >       autofs4 - fix mntput, dput order bug
> > >       autofs4 - fix sparse warning in waitq.c:autofs4_expire_indirect()
> > >       autofs4 - check for invalid dentry in getpath
> > > 
> > > Jeff Moyer (2):
> > >       autofs4 - use struct qstr in waitq.c
> > >       autofs4 - fix incorrect return from root.c:try_to_fill_dentry()
> > 
> > Unfortunately some of the patches didn't go on cleanly.  I'm using kernel 
> > 2.6.22.17, specifically SuSE's kernel-source-2.6.22.17-0.1 updated package 
> > and the "default" kernel.  Applying to a pristine copy of the source I had 
> > these failures:
> > 
> > autofs4-dont-make-expiring-dentry-negative  
> >     #I had to do this one by hand, but I'm pretty sure I got the right
> >     #locations and there were no screwups.
> > autofs4-use-look-aside-list-for-lookups 
> >     #Hunk 8 at 763: in root.c in autofs4_dir_symlink 
> >     #after inode = autofs4_get_inode(dir->i_sb, ino); at 698 and ENOMEM 
> >     #test my source (outside the patch) has d_instantiate(dentry, inode); 
> >     #yours has d_add(dentry, inode);  I did not make this change.
> >     #Hunk 12 at 914 in autofs4_dir_mkdir
> >     #Identical code; I left this one alone also.
> 
> This isn't good.
> 
> I'll need to make a set of patches for 2.6.22 as it sounds like there is
> at least one prior patch not present.
> 
> Don't waste any more time on this until I can get an updated patch set
> to you.

I see what it is.
The macro process_group(current) has changed to task_pgrp_nr(current) in
later kernels. It causes the patches to not apply.

Ian


_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs

Reply via email to