On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:01:56 +0200 Maxim Levitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > argh, this is getting bad. > > > > Can you please test the below patch asap? Against 2.6.24-rc4 or > > latest-linus. > > > > > > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Revert > > > > commit 2b1e300a9dfc3196ccddf6f1d74b91b7af55e416 > > Author: Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sun Dec 2 00:33:17 2007 +1100 > > > > Hi, > > I finally solved this. > There is no need to revert 2b1e300a9dfc3196ccddf6f1d74b91b7af55e416. > > It was actually a deadly mixture of 3 bugs: > > 1) Stale handles - Trond's patch fixes it, but I somehow missed it. What is "Trond's patch" and where is it now? > 2) Empty /proc/fs/nfsd (which causes nfs4 failures, and masks the bug #1, > since with it the subfolders are just empty) > [PATCH 2.6.24-rc4] proc: Remove/Fix proc generic d_revalidate fixes it That patch was merged into Linus's tree just prior to 2.6.24-rc5. > 3) And as I expected, a userspace bug, which believe me or not has exactly > the same symptoms > like #2 (and doesn't depend on others) > > It is a wrong boot script in BLFS that starts nfs daemons in wrong order. > So there are 3 bugs and each masks the former one :-) . > > I revised boot script to use recommended order like in nfs-utils. > And finally everything works.... > Well... It's relatively common that insufficiently-robust userspace works OK under kernel N and then stops working under kernel N+1. Even though the fault lies with userspace, we prefer that it continues to work. But it doesn't sounds like that'll be a concern here. Thanks for the followup. -- 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/
