On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 07:40 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote: > > > Fair call, but it comes over as though you don't want to contribute at > > all, which isn't good. > > That's not the impression I meant to give at all. I _am_ building some new > test machines (about ten of them), and I _will_ do some testing. My test > machines will all be 32-bit, though, as there is no spare 64-bit hardware. > I just can't go testing on a production network; what with this and the > hang problem I described in a separate post, I'm close enough to being > lynched as it is. I have written my own applications of a similar level of > complexity to autofs, and I certainly appreciate that it's not easy, and I > definitely appreciate the job that you're doing.
We're good then. I appreciate you are in a difficult spot, but spare a thought for the pressures I may have that tent to make me a bit short from time to time, ;) As far as the hang you have seen, I don't know why that's happening, the patches were added between el5_5.4 and el5_5.6 have been around for quite a while, upstream and in Fedora and tested by more than one customer, so I didn't expect to hear of a problem. Like I said, send me a gdb backtrace so that I can see where it's happening. Just to confirm, this is autofs-5.0.1-0.rc2.143.el5_5.6, and what kernel revision, I guess the same as RHEL-5.5, which should be fine. I can post the previous RedHat package to people.redhat.com so you can revert back while we work on this, if that will kelp. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
