Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 00:31 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
>>> I'm mystified. I'm quite unable to reproduce this on my own setup: the
>>> ENAMETOOLONG error reporting mechanism prevents me from even getting
>>> near the above bug.
>>>
>>> Could you add a little printk into
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 00:31 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
I'm mystified. I'm quite unable to reproduce this on my own setup: the
ENAMETOOLONG error reporting mechanism prevents me from even getting
near the above bug.
Could you add a little printk into the
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 00:31 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> > I'm mystified. I'm quite unable to reproduce this on my own setup: the
> > ENAMETOOLONG error reporting mechanism prevents me from even getting
> > near the above bug.
> >
> > Could you add a little printk into the 'encode_lookup'
Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 18:36 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
>> Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>>>
Hi,
On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 18:36 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 00:31 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
I'm mystified. I'm quite unable to reproduce this on my own setup: the
ENAMETOOLONG error reporting mechanism prevents me from even getting
near the above bug.
Could you add a little printk into the 'encode_lookup' routine on
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 18:36 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 18:36 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945!
Sep
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 13:41 +0530, suzuki wrote:
Hi
I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the
following.
The pathconf() request gets a reply with :
pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1
pathinfo.max_link= 255
Is this really an
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 13:41 +0530, suzuki wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the
> following.
>
> The pathconf() request gets a reply with :
>
> pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1
> pathinfo.max_link= 255
>
> Is this really an expected
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945!
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5
Hi
I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the
following.
The pathconf() request gets a reply with :
pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1
pathinfo.max_link= 255
Is this really an expected answer from a server for a proper connection
( for mount requests on
Hi
I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the
following.
The pathconf() request gets a reply with :
pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1
pathinfo.max_link= 255
Is this really an expected answer from a server for a proper connection
( for mount requests on
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945!
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1]
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 13:41 +0530, suzuki wrote:
Hi
I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the
following.
The pathconf() request gets a reply with :
pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1
pathinfo.max_link= 255
Is this really an expected answer from
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 13:41 +0530, suzuki wrote:
Hi
I have been trying to debug this issue from my side and could find the
following.
The pathconf() request gets a reply with :
pathinfo.max_namelen = (unsiged int) -1
pathinfo.max_link= 255
Is this really an
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945!
> > Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1]
> > Sep 7
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 01:56 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
On 07/09/2007, Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: kernel BUG at fs/nfs/nfs4xdr.c:945!
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2 kernel: Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#1]
Sep 7 11:42:49 p55lp2
18 matches
Mail list logo
