On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:19:12PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> ...
> > It is best not to use nohide - we should probably mark it as
> > 'legacy'.
> >
> > Simply export the top level mountpoint as 'crossmnt' and everything
> > below there will be exported.
> >
> > > Where should I put those op
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:05:30PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Monday 10 December 2007 16:36:09 J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:19:12PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > It is best not to use nohide - we should proba
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:14:40PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is being decommissioned.
OK by me, thanks.
>
> I wonder if the website should be changed to linux-nfs.org ...
Probably.
--b.
>
> Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 08:46:18AM -0800, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Incidentally, we ran our tests with 128 knfsd threads. The default of 8
> threads produces miserable performance on the SSD, which gave us a good
> scare on our initial test run. It would be very nice to implement an
> algorith
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:39:25PM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Mit, 2007-12-12 at 10:02 -0800, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 December 2007 09:46, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> [...]
> > > People have proposed writing a daemon that just reads
> > > /
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:35:50AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Here is a patch set which modifies the system to enhance the
> ESTALE error handling for system calls which take pathnames
> as arguments.
I think your cover letter may be bigger than any of the actual
patches I'm not c
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:45:52AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:36:01AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
>>> static int path_lookup_create(int dfd, const char *name,
>>> - unsigned int lookup_flags, struct nameidata *nd,
>>>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:05:18AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> If we're shutting down all the nlm_hosts anyway, then it doesn't make
> sense to allow RPC calls to linger. Allowing them to do so can mean
> that the RPC calls can outlive the currently running lockd and can lead
> to a use after free
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:05:15AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Move the initialzation in __svc_create_thread that happens prior to
> thread creation to a new function. Export the function to allow
> services to have better control over the svc_rqst structs.
>
> Also rearrange the rqstp initializat
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:48:44PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:59:43 -0500
> "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 09:05:15AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Move the initialzation in _
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:12:03PM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Peter Staubach wrote:
>>> I can probably imagine a situation where the pathname resolution
>>> would never finish, but I am not sure that it could ever happen
>>> in nature.
>>
>> U
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
> >> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
>
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:43:10PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> + (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
> + public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
> + tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
> + indef
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
>
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:29:59PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> >
> > Vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 seems stable. I did not see any crash or warnings.
>
> OK that's great. The next step would be to try excluding specific git
> trees from mm to
e of conditionals
always make my head hurt for some reason. So maybe something like the
below?
Although I'd be happier if we could get a comment from someone with a
better understanding of why this hack was added in the first place.
Thanks for the bug report! (And, by the way, how did
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 11:36:18AM -, Roger Willcocks wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 05:06:03PM +, Roger Willcocks wrote:
>>> nfsd/vfs.c:nfsd_create (the v2 version of create) says:
>>>
>>> "Set file attributes. M
tp://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9400
> Handled-By: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patch :
I'm assuming Christoph is handling this:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119505424926069&w=2
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:30:23AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> I don't know git, but it seems, at least if done for web only, this
> shouldn't be so 'heavy'. It could be a 'simple' translation of commit
> date by querying a small database with kernel versions & dates.
If I create a commit in m
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 03:07:46PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:08:38PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > Personally I'd prefer it to only grow a struct stat or rather it's members
> > > But the nfsd code currently expects a de
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:20:55PM +, Phil Endecott wrote:
> Dear Experts,
>
> NFS doesn't work with inotify (and it looks like it can't, certainly not
> before NFS v4.1). However, if I give an NFS filename to
> inotify_add_watch(), I don't get an error.
>
> If it indicated an error in this
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 08:11:45PM +, Phil Endecott wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:20:55PM +, Phil Endecott wrote:
>>> Dear Experts,
>>>
>>> NFS doesn't work with inotify (and it looks like it can't, certainly not
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:33:21PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Does somebody have a step by step tutorial for doing the standard
> "edit - test - modify - retest - submit - edit - resubmit" sequence
> with GIT? Is there a GIT newsgroup or mailinglist? Or should I just
> post my silly questions t
People should also cc relevant mailing lists when reporting bugs.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
REPORTING-BUGS | 11 ++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/REPORTING-BUGS b/REPORTING-BUGS
index ac02e42..ab0c566 100644
--- a/REP
I've had these (fairly trivial) patches sitting around for a while just
because I had no idea who to send them to.
So I figure that means they, err, go to you?
Apologies if not.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PR
I'm inclined to think dnotify belongs in filesystems/.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/00-INDEX|2 -
Documentation/dnotify.txt | 99 -
Documentation/filesystems/00-INDE
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:03:14PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:50:12 -0500 J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> >
> > I've had these (fairly trivial) patches sitting around for a while just
> > because I had no idea who to send them to.
> >
>
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:17:43PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Btw, lockd() takes BKL just after starting up and only implicitly drops
> it when blocking. This seems very dangerous to me and badly wants
> updating to some real locking scheme..
Yep.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: se
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:17:20PM +, David Howells wrote:
>
> Make NFSD work with detached security, using the patches that excise the
> security information from task_struct to struct task_security as a base.
>
> Each time NFSD wants a new security descriptor (to do NFS4 recovery or just to
My mail client seems to be flagging all your messages as duplicates of each
other.
Hm. It may be that your headers have two Message-Id's...
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.5.3.7.949.g2221a6
Message-Id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
... the second of which is pr
equest argument structures
Frank Filz (1):
nfsd: Allow AIX client to read dir containing mountpoints
J. Bruce Fields (34):
nfsd4: probe callback channel only once
nfsd: move callback rpc_client creation into separate thread
knfsd: fix broken length check in nfs4idmap.c
Just some idea what we might be working on for 2.6.26, besides continued
bug-fixing and cleanup:
Work that we already have patches for and that I expect to be included
in whole or in 2.6.26:
- ipv6: Aurélien Charbon's patch to add ipv6 support to the
server's export interface is
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:42:23PM +0100, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
>
> fre, 25 01 2008 kl. 18:15 -0500, skrev J. Bruce Fields:
> > Below is a summary of the nfs server patches which I expect to submit
> > (any day now) for 2.6.25; please let me know if you notice anything
&g
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, bfields wrote:
> OK. I've got a machine running
>
> for c in $(git rev-list origin..linux-nfs/nfs-server-stable^); do
> git checkout $c
> make -s -j4
> done
>
> now just to make sure Thanks again!
Pfft, that
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 08:21:29AM -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > On APM resume this morning on my Thinkpad X31, I got a "spin_lock is
> > already locked" error; see below. This doesn't happen on every resume
I got the following after an apm resume on a thinkpad X31, with
2.6.12-rc1 plus some (hopefully unrelated) NFS patches. Any ideas?
--Bruce Fields
Mar 21 18:22:44 puzzle apmd[1815]: Suspending now
Mar 21 22:37:36 puzzle kernel: PCI: Setting latency timer of device
:00:1d.0 to 64
Mar 21 22:3
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 02:33:44AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Seems that there's a `struct work_struct' which is still registered but its
> memory has been freed. It's likely that CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC caught this.
>
> Either that, or some module got unloaded without flushing its workqueue.
>
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> I think the question you meant to ask was what would happen if you
> mounted something on /tmp/mnt2/a/b (the slave copy) and then mounted
> something else on /tmp/mnt1/a/b. In that case there's two places where
&g
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
> building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
>
> Unfortunately, the RFC states that moving a shared vfsmount is
> prohibited (for which the
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:33:08PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> That still keeps you from using the 'build tree elsewhere' and 'mount
> - --move' approach though, as the parent mountpoint would likely be shared.
I believe it's also just the source mountpoint that's the problem, not
the destinati
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:02:43PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> oops. I had the following in mind.
>
> mount /tmp/mnt1
> ** mount --make-shared /tmp/mnt1 **
> mkdir -p /tmp/mnt1/a/b
> mount --rbind /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2
> mount --make-slave /tmp/mnt2
>
> In this case i
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> No. I want to allow the mount. However, if there are several shared
> '/home' (through CLONE_NS or mount --bind), there remains the following
> two key problems:
>
> - - How do you expire the mounts and umount them? (undefined wi
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
> happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
> Is a new private subtree created in the new larger shared subtree? or
> will that be pruned out in the
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> 2. mount
>
> We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
> vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
> doesn't become a member or slave of any p-node and is simply attach
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:47:37AM -0500, Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. It wasn't very important to me so I didn't
> make time to follow up on it. I was just playing w/ ccache at the time.
>
> Finally I noticed this patch from -mm1... and it solves the problem.
>
> nfsd--
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:10:37AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> I didn't mean "If it fixes a regression, it should be accepted."
> I meant "If it does not fix a regression, it should not be accepted."
... Presumably with the obvious exception for security fixes.--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On APM resume this morning on my Thinkpad X31, I got a "spin_lock is
already locked" error; see below. This doesn't happen on every resume,
though it's happened before. The kernel is 2.6.11 plus a bunch of
(hopefully unrelated...) NFS patches.
Any ideas?
--Bruce Fields
Mar 12 07:07:29 puzzle k
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> 6. mount --move
> prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
> as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
> gets propagation from there (as we would do for rbind).
Why this prohib
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > 6. mount --move
> > > prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> No - I have been missing a typo. Make that "if mountpoint of what we
> are moving...".
OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
removal of the subtree from the vfsmount of the source mountpoint.
By the way,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
>
> mount --make-shared /foo
> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>
> A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but doesn't when sharing is
> enabled (infinite loop).
How does this force an
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Well, if I understand it correctly:
>
> (assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
>
> $> mount --make-shared /foo
>
> will make A->A
>
> $> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>
> will create a vfsmount B based off A, but because A is in a p-node,
>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
> shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
> children of A if A->A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
> occurs before o
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:56:13PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> In this context, it doesn't make sense to deploy a protection A or B
> without the companion protection, which is what I meant.
But breaking up the introduction of new code into logical steps is still
helpful for people trying t
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 03:29:44PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> This still doesn't give me any way to take a big patch and make little
> patches without hours of work and (N+2) kernel trees for N patches
Any path to getting a big complicated patch reviewed and into the kernel
is going to inv
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
> - --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
> tagged as shared (becomes a member of a p-node of size 1).
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:13:08AM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> checkpatch allows to indent with any number of tabs and up to 7 spaces.
> This is consistent with Documentation/CodingStyle and therefore can be
> considered "correct". However, forcing everybody to the same tab expansion
> setup is t
results of an upcall to mountd.
Thanks to Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for bug report and data collection.
Cc: Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs2acl.c |2 +-
fs/nfs
ome minor style problems and change a printk()
to a dprintk(), to make it harder for random unprivileged users to spam
the logs.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c | 43 ++-
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 17 deletion
The following two patches are nfsd bugfixes that I believe are
appropriate for 2.6.24 and 2.6.23.y.
--b.
-
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
Plea
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:42AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday November 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The following two patches are nfsd bugfixes that I believe are
> > appropriate for 2.6.24 and 2.6.23.y.
> >
> > --b.
> >
>
> Both
> Reviewed-By: NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Than
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:35:01AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> (CC: trimmed - as Bruce says: separate discussion)
>
> On Monday November 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:42AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > Calling nfsd_setuser an extra time does open us up for a ver
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 08:07:55PM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote:
> I noticed that I cannot use kernel nfsd any more with 2.6.24-rc2, last
> working kernel as of now is 2.6.23.1. First I was using nfsv4 but switching
> to nfsv3 did not help either: exported shares can be mounted (client:
> 2.6-gi
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 02:36:18AM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Christian Kujau wrote:
>> Ah, I forgot about that. Will do as soon as I get a working kernel again.
>> I'm in the middle of git-bisecting and I had to mark the last 2 versions
>> as "bad" but only because they
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:43:40AM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> I wonder if this is a similar hang to what Christian was seeing here:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/13/319
Ah, thanks for noticing that. Christian Kujau, is /data an xfs
partition? There are a bunch of xfs commits in
^92d15c2ccbb3
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:29:52PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:04:00PM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > With 2.6.24-rc2 (amd64) I sometimes (usually but perhaps not always)
> > see a hang when accessing some NFS exported XFS filesystems. Local
> > access to these f
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:44:19PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:39:22PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > This must have come up before; feel free to remind me: is there any way
> > to make the interface easier to use? (E.g. would it help
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:02:41PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:53:22PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:44:19PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:39:22PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:38:20AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:08:47 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > so please stop this "too busy and too noisy" nonsense already. It was
> > nonsense 10 years ago and it's nonsense today. In 10 years the kernel
> > grew from a 1 million lines
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:19:31PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> In debugging a LTP failure related to fcntl on tmpfs it appears that we
> aren't able to use fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, F_WRLCK). In the debugging it
> looks like we artificial increase the dentry->d_count and so
> generic_setlease() alwa
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:50:43PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> Virtual Folders.
>
> I use VM mode in EMACS, but I believe some other mail readers have the
> same functionality.
> I have a virtual folder called "nfs" which shows me all mail in my
> inbox which has the string 'nfs' or 'lockd' in a To
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:57:59PM -0400, George G. Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:51:57PM -0400, George G. Davis wrote:
> > ---
> > Not sure if this is the correct fix but it does resolve the hangs we're
> > observing in posix_locks_deadlock().
>
> Please disregard the previous patch,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:07:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 02:57:59PM -0400, George G. Davis wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 02:51:57PM -0400, George G. Davis wrote:
> > > ---
> > > Not sure if this is the correct fix but it does resolve the hangs we're
> > > observing in
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think the real solution is to remove deadlock detection completely;
it's hard to imaagine applications really depend on it anyway.
For now, though, just bail out after a few iterations.
Thanks to George Davis for reporting the problem.
Cc
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We currently attempt to return -EDEALK to blocking fcntl() file locking
requests that would create a cycle in the graph of tasks waiting on
locks.
This is inefficient: in the general case it requires us determining
whether we're adding a
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 06:47:08PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Hm. After another look: assume we have four tasks, t1, t2, t3, and t4.
> Assume t1 and t2 share the same current->files (so they're the same
> "owner" for the purpose of posix_same_owner()). Assume:
&g
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 06:40:52PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:27:32 -0600
> Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 01:43:21PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > We currently attempt to return -EDEALK to
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 04:41:57PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 05:50:30PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > You can't fix the false EDEADLK detection without solving the halting
> > > problem. Best of luck with that.
> >
> > I can see that it would be difficult to do
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 11:38:26PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The spec and SYSV certainly ignore threading in this situation and you
> > > know that perfectly well (or did in 2004)
> >
> > The discussion petered out (or that mailing list archive lost articles
> > from the thread) without any kin
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's currently possible to send posix_locks_deadlock() into an infinite
loop (under the BKL).
For now, fix this just by bailing out after a few iterations. We may
want to fix this in a way that better clarifies the semantics of
deadlock dete
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:15:19AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > But, OK, if we can identify unshared current->files at the time we put a
> > task to sleep, then a slight modification of our current algorithm might
> >
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:06:04AM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:43:21 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > We currently attempt to return -EDEALK to bloc
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:41:27PM +0100, Jan Blunck wrote:
> I'm embedding struct path into struct svc_export.
Fine by me (For what it's worth:
Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
)
--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For display purposes, treat uid's and gid's as unsigned ints for now.
Also fix a typo.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/nfsd/export.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:33:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
Oops, thanks; these are my fault.
(How are you finding these? I was assuming sparse, but running a make
-C2 just now I didn't see anything that would have suggested these
fixes. I'm using whatever's current in Fedora--it says 0.3-1.fc7
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 10:11:41AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thursday July 26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:33:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Oops, thanks; these are my fault.
> >
> > (How are you finding these? I was assuming sparse, but running a make
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:15:07PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:40:59PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > There's no reason not to just mount server:/exports/data directly at
> > /home/data; the bind mounts are just a workaround for the somewha
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The nfserr_dropit happens routinely on upcalls (so a kmalloc failure is
almost never the actual cause), but I occasionally get a complant from
some tester that's worried because they ran across this message after
turning on debugging to re
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I moved this check into map_new_errors, but forgot to delete the
original. Oops.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This macro is unused.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/sunrpc/cache.h | 10 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/cache.h b/includ
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Note that qword_get() returns length or -1, not an -ERROR.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs4idmap.c |8 +---
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Benny Halevy suggested renaming cmp_* to same_* to make the meaning of
the return value clearer.
Fix some nearby style deviations while we're at it, including a small
swath of creative indentation in nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op().
Signed-off-by
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To quote a recent mail from Andrew Morton:
Look: if there's a way in which an unprivileged user can trigger
a printk we fix it, end of story.
OK. I assume that goes double for printk()s that might be triggered by
random h
These are some nfs server patches I intend to submit for 2.6.24.
I'm also keeping this sort of thing in the nfs-server-stable branch, at
git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/linux.git nfs-server-stable
That repository has a bunch of random other (mainly nfs-related)
projects, but that particul
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We have some slabs that the nfs4 server uses to store state objects.
We're currently creating and destroying those slabs whenever the server
is brought up or down. That seems excessive; may as well just do that
in module initialization and
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c: In function 'write_filehandle':
fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c:301: warning: 'maxsize' may be used uninitialized in this
function
Cc: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTE
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We've let svcauth_gss_accept() get much too long and hairy. The
RPC_GSS_PROC_INIT and RPC_GSS_PROC_CONTINUE_INIT cases share very little
with the other cases, so it's very natural to split them off into a
separate function.
This will als
l_post_wcc() too. I chose not to change this because I
thought that it was safer to leave well enough alone. If we
decide to make a change, it can be done separately.
Signed-off-by: Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <[EM
From: J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We want to allow gss on the callback channel, so people using krb5 can
still get the benefits of delegations.
But looking up the rpc credential can take some time in that case. And
we shouldn't delay the response to setclientid_confirm wh
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 43 ++-
1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
index a0c2b25..11ae949 100644
--- a
401 - 500 of 1455 matches
Mail list logo
