On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> > > > Nice work, I am going to have a closer look at the patch soon. Could you
> > > >
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:15AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:15AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > > > > Anton
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:15AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > > > Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > > > )-: I have addressed the only
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > > Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > > )-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
> > > > the oops and below is the
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
)-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
the oops and below is the resulting patch.
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:15AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
)-: I have addressed the only things I can
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:15AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:56:15AM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, John McCutchan wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > )-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
> > > the oops and below is the resulting patch. Could you please test it?
> >
> >
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > )-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
> > the oops and below is the resulting patch. Could you please test it?
>
> Yeah!! After removing I_WILL_FREE stuff, that fixed both the oops *and* the
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> )-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
> the oops and below is the resulting patch. Could you please test it?
Yeah!! After removing I_WILL_FREE stuff, that fixed both the oops *and* the
hang. Everything works nicely now.
Thanks a
Gautam,
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 11:55 -0400, Gautam Singaraju wrote:
> I had used the 2.6.12 kernel with the latest Inotify. There was no
> "I_WILL_FREE" in the any place. And, there was no problem in compilation.
Er, yes, obviously. You are not using my patch on top of inotify and
original
ks,
Gautam Singaraju
SIS Dept., UNC Charlotte
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Altaparmakov
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 11:12 AM
To: Daniel Drake
Cc: David Gómez; Robert Love; John McCutchan; Linux-kernel
Subject: Re: Problem with inoti
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:39 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:27 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > > I reverted the patch you sent earlier
> > > (inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix.diff) and applied the
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:27 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > I reverted the patch you sent earlier
> > (inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix.diff) and applied the one you
> > attached here
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> I reverted the patch you sent earlier
> (inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix.diff) and applied the one you
> attached here (inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix2.diff).
>
> The good news is that the hang is gone. The bad news is
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
I reverted the patch you sent earlier
(inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix.diff) and applied the one you
attached here (inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix2.diff).
The good news is that the hang is gone. The bad news is that
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:27 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
I reverted the patch you sent earlier
(inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix.diff) and applied the one you
attached here (inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix2.diff).
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:39 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 15:27 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
I reverted the patch you sent earlier
(inotify_unmount_inodes-list-iteration-fix.diff) and applied the one you
Singaraju
SIS Dept., UNC Charlotte
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Altaparmakov
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 11:12 AM
To: Daniel Drake
Cc: David Gómez; Robert Love; John McCutchan; Linux-kernel
Subject: Re: Problem with inotify
On Mon
Gautam,
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 11:55 -0400, Gautam Singaraju wrote:
I had used the 2.6.12 kernel with the latest Inotify. There was no
I_WILL_FREE in the any place. And, there was no problem in compilation.
Er, yes, obviously. You are not using my patch on top of inotify and
original inotify
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
)-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
the oops and below is the resulting patch. Could you please test it?
Yeah!! After removing I_WILL_FREE stuff, that fixed both the oops *and* the
hang. Everything works nicely now.
Thanks a
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
)-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
the oops and below is the resulting patch. Could you please test it?
Yeah!! After removing I_WILL_FREE stuff, that fixed both the oops *and* the
hang.
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:09 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Daniel Drake wrote:
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
)-: I have addressed the only things I can think off that could cause
the oops and below is the resulting patch. Could you please test it?
Yeah!! After
25 matches
Mail list logo