On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:24:19PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > No, so have to unlock it also, if you return -ENOSPC. > > > > So the correct fix seems to be: [...] > > This currently works for me (but using 2.4.0 + dwg-ramfs.patch + this patch) > > Have you stressed it? (I see leakiness) I do reads and writes to it every 5 seconds and sometimes more ( mounted on /tmp, /var/run and the like ) and had an uptime of about a week (I use it in an embedded-like system and we sometimes change the system image). There might be a dentry or inode leak, but that doesn't bite me, because I only create the files I need once and extend or shrink them. But I couldn't stress it too much. Where exactly do you see the leaks? PS: For reference, I put the diff to 2.4.0 that I use to http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~ioe/dwg-ramfs.patch The original patch has _not_ been done by me, but by David Gibson, Linuxcare Australia. PPS: It would be surprising anyway, if I used the right patch all the time, while the wrong one was in acX. That's why I didn't submit anything ;-) Regards Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag> <<<<<<<<<<<< come and join the fun >>>>>>>>>>>> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
