On 11/02/19(Mon) 18:58, Artturi Alm wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:15:43PM -0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 10/02/19(Sun) 20:46, Artturi Alm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > rather than patching uhub(4), i figured this would be less not-ok, > > > if not ok as-is, given its way more limited scope. > > > > Why shouldn't we patch uhub(4)? > > > > There's no MD code in uhub(4), and i don't know what to fix there yet, > but the workaround i was referring to w/"patching" has MI side-effects. > > > > diff below works for me, but i suppose playing w/timeouts is a must, > > > for root on nfs? > > > > What is the issue? Could you explain it in words? That would allow > > us to find a solution together :o) > > > > I thought this was known, i'm sorry; i should have linked to the details[0].
Sorry but that mail describes symptoms. What is the problem? Why your diff work? What did you do to write this workaround? What could be another alternative to the fix your proposing?
