On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 15:08 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 16:11 -0200, Leonardo Chiquitto wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: >> > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 21:28 -0800, Mike Marion wrote: >> > >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 07:37:01PM -0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > That is kernel revision and autofs revision? >> > >> >> > >> 2.6.16.60-0.59.1 (Sles10 sp3 with an updated, but not bleeding edge, >> > >> patch). >> > >> autofs 5.0.5 with most of the patches up to a couple months ago. It's >> > >> hard to >> > >> get exacts because it's a PTF from Novell (we really pushed them to >> > >> upgrade to >> > >> 5.0.5) but it should be pretty much equal to the patch they just >> > >> released for >> > >> sle 11 sp1 that they're recommending as they default going forward. > > Now I'm confused? > > I thought that Mike had mention he had seen hangs, similar to Steve, and > this backtrace was an example of that.
This is right. The backtrace I posted was sent to me as an example of a hang. > But the mail thread doesn't read > like that and oddly enough I seem to have identified a locking problem > from looking at the code based on the backtrace. I'm sorry that we ended up hijacking the "non-expiring mounts" thread. Leonardo _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
