>>> Is there going to be a 3.4.108 with a fix for this?
>>>
>>
>> definitely.
>
> Great. Do you have a timeline in mind?
>
Yeah, probably in early June.
> We have a daily automated test which has been hitting this issue for a
> while, I can continue to ignore the associated cron spam of course
On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 17:05 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> On 2015/5/19 16:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 09:15 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> >> On 2015/4/29 20:21, Al Viro wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:45:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>>
> The symptoms are that `umount'
On 2015/5/19 16:33, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 09:15 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
>> On 2015/4/29 20:21, Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:45:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
The symptoms are that `umount' fails with EBUSY,
>>>
>>> [lizf: Backported to 3.4:
>>>
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 09:15 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> On 2015/4/29 20:21, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:45:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> The symptoms are that `umount' fails with EBUSY,
> >
> > [lizf: Backported to 3.4:
> > - remove the changes to follow_link() a
On 2015/4/29 20:21, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:45:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> The symptoms are that `umount' fails with EBUSY,
>
> [lizf: Backported to 3.4:
> - remove the changes to follow_link() as it doesn't call set_root()]
>
> looks dubious - I don't have -
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:45:45PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The symptoms are that `umount' fails with EBUSY,
[lizf: Backported to 3.4:
- remove the changes to follow_link() as it doesn't call set_root()]
looks dubious - I don't have -stable in front of me, but set_root() in
follow_li
