==> Regarding Re: [autofs] [RFC PATCH]autofs4: hang and proposed fix; Ian Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds:
raven> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, William H. Taber wrote: >> > So the question is, can anyone provide an example of a path that, upon >> > calling autofs revalidate or lookup with the i_sem held, not be the >> path > that aquired it? raven> So still no counter example! >> Any other process calling lookup_one_len on a file in /net. raven> I'm afraid this is not an example it's an assertion. "Any other raven> process" is a little broad I think. You'll need to be more raven> specific. Well, I think we've determined that the reported problem doesn't happen with any in-tree callers. The question, then, is do you want to fix the locking problem? Two approaches were presented in this thread. I don't really like the idea of the hack used by devfs, since it relies on implicit semantics. I haven't given much thought to the second approach, though (are we sure it can be made to work?). It may require a good deal of effort, but if it makes things work properly, it's worth considering. I'm just not sure where it sits in the list of priorities, as I know you've got a lot on your plate, Ian. -Jeff _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
