In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J. Bruce Fields" writes:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
> Those files are actually in a separate filesystem (of type "nfsd") which
> is supposed to be mounted on /proc/fs/nfsd/. So that mount must have
> failed in the bad case? It's not immediately obvious to me what this
> patch has to do with that. Hm.
Yes, it is indeed a separate mount in both cases, but in the broken case,
/proc/fs/nfsd is empty.
The patch in question introduces a proc ->d_revalidate method which does
this:
static int proc_revalidate_dentry(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata *nd)
{
d_drop(dentry);
return 0;
}
I'm not sure why it drops the dentry and then returns OK to the VFS; is it
to force the VFS to revalidate the dentry? In that case, I think it should
return -ESTALE. I also don't know why /proc needs a ->d_revalidate in the
first place (it was fine up until now). Perhaps what proc does now is
correct, but its behavior has changed such that nfsd's /proc/fs/nfsd needs
to do something different (like grab an extra dentry ref?).
Anyway, if I comment out the d_drop line in proc_revalidate_dentry, or
remove proc's ->d_revalidate method, nfs exporting works again.
Someone more familiar with this patch and /proc should investigate. Until
then, nfsv2/3 exporting are broken in 2.6.24-rc4.
> --b.
Cheers,
Erez.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
