On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 21:32 -0500, Jim Duda wrote: > Ian, > > I do have daemon.*, I got it backwards in the last post. > > I downloaded autofs-5.0.2.tar.gz, do you want me to download 5.1.31 ?
I only said that because you mentioned using autofs-5.0.1-31 in a previous mail. You did mention you had downloaded the tar but didn't say if you had applied the patches when I asked and in a mail following you provided output from "rpm -q autofs" that showed you were using revision 31. The patch I referred to isn't included in the tar or any of the patches that should be applied to it. > > Jim > > Ian Kent wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 20:55 -0500, Jim Duda wrote: > >> Ian, > >> > >> Adding *.daemon simply resulted in the same information being dumped to > >> the syslog file, however, twice. So, no new information. > > > > That should be daemon.* and usually you would log it to a different file > > when adding a syslog entry like that but I don't think that will make > > any difference. > > > > I can't remember how logging to a syslog server works now but does the > > syslog configuration on the server also limit what is logged? > > > >> Once automount gets wedged, I cannot use gdb to interrogate the threads, > >> I cannot break into the program after it's wedged. > >> > >> I'm by no means a power gdb user. > > > > Me nether. > > > >> I did: > >> > >> set detach-on-fork off, simply based on a recommended help from ddd. > >> > >> I traced the program all the way down into mount_bind.c, in the > >> mount_init function, then into spawn.c, where it did the first fork. > >> The program was wedged in spawn.c on line 186 at the first do while loop > >> after the fork. > >> > >> The program though do_read_master, mod->lookup_int, then into open_mount > >> for "nfs" before it got to the first spawn. > >> > >> I don't know how helpful any of this information is for you in helping > >> me determine what is different about my funky root file system which > >> causes a lockup, but thanks for trying. > > > > I'm not sure either but one thing is sure, problems are almost always > > different from what you think they are when you finally get hard > > evidence. > > > > In autofs-5.0.1-31, line 186 corresponds to an if statement? > > > > How about we try getting rid of a recent patch to this area of the code > > and rebuild autofs and see if that helps. The one I have in mind is > > close to the chopping block already. > > > > In particular: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] F-7]$ cvs diff -u autofs.spec > > Index: autofs.spec > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/autofs/F-7/autofs.spec,v > > retrieving revision 1.221 > > diff -u -r1.221 autofs.spec > > --- autofs.spec 21 Dec 2007 10:21:18 -0000 1.221 > > +++ autofs.spec 4 Jan 2008 02:20:20 -0000 > > @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ > > %patch35 -p1 > > %patch36 -p1 > > %patch37 -p1 > > -%patch38 -p1 > > +#%patch38 -p1 > > %patch39 -p1 > > > > %build > > _______________________________________________ > autofs mailing list > [email protected] > http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
