On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:40:31AM +0200, Trond Myklebust wrote:
[...]
> > nlm_release_file() *does* grab the semaphore. That's the
> > problem.
>
> Which is why I'm proposing a solution: to split it into 2 functions.
>1st function does the semaphore manipulations and calls
>
> " " == Michael Riepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Ugh. In that case, my personal preference would be to make
>> nlm_release_file() grab the semaphore, then call another
>> routine to do f_count-- and possible file cleanup which could
>> also be called by
" " == Michael Riepe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ugh. In that case, my personal preference would be to make
nlm_release_file() grab the semaphore, then call another
routine to do f_count-- and possible file cleanup which could
also be called by nlmsvc_traverse_shares(). Call
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:37:21AM +0200, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > " " == Michael Riepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Trond Myklebust
> > wrote:
> >> Your patch does not seem correct to me. IMO you should rather
> >> be
> " " == Michael Riepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Trond Myklebust
> wrote:
>> Your patch does not seem correct to me. IMO you should rather
>> be calling nlm_release_file() in both cases where you applied
>> 'put_file()'.
> " " == Michael Riepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is an inode leak in lockd, caused by a reference counting
> bug. It will appear when you use DOS/Windows clients to access
> a knfsd+lockd based NFS server, and it will crash the server
> sooner or later (a DOS
" " == Michael Riepe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Trond Myklebust
wrote:
Your patch does not seem correct to me. IMO you should rather
be calling nlm_release_file() in both cases where you applied
'put_file()'.
No. In the
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:37:21AM +0200, Trond Myklebust wrote:
" " == Michael Riepe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Trond Myklebust
wrote:
Your patch does not seem correct to me. IMO you should rather
be calling
8 matches
Mail list logo