On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:52:08 -0400 Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:44 +0400
> Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I look at the 2.6.23-mm1 and see that there's one hunk lost. This
> > is the one Oleg re-sent some days ago (the mail thread subject w
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:55:44 +0400
Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I look at the 2.6.23-mm1 and see that there's one hunk lost. This
> is the one Oleg re-sent some days ago (the mail thread subject was
> 2.6.23-mm1 thread exit_group issue). Here it is (sent 13 oct 2007):
>
> --- kern
> >> I guess we can debug it in the old-fashioned ways. The first of which is
> >> to palm the problem off on Pavel ;)
>
> I look at the 2.6.23-mm1 and see that there's one hunk lost. This
> is the one Oleg re-sent some days ago (the mail thread subject was
> 2.6.23-mm1 thread exit_group issue).
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> I guess we can debug it in the old-fashioned ways. The first of which is
>> to palm the problem off on Pavel ;)
I look at the 2.6.23-mm1 and see that there's one hunk lost. This
is the one Oleg re-sent some days ago (the mail thread subject was
2.6.23-mm1 thread exit_grou
> I guess we can debug it in the old-fashioned ways. The first of which is
> to palm the problem off on Pavel ;)
>
> I don't recall seeing a simple step-by-step way by which others can
> reproduce this?
My method is this:
- enable CONFIG_FUSE_FS
- compile fuse from CVS:
cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL P
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:38:12PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Wrt. the UML failures that Miklos is seeing, I imagine UML needs
> to do some similar tricks.
UML is just an architecture - it has no need of such tricks (although
it does need to keep track of host pids, but these are in architecture
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 21:38 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:11:43 -0400
> Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have my systems set up to automount my home directory over
> > NFS when I log in. When trying to log in to the system with
> > 2.6.23-mm1, I get the messag
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:11:43 -0400
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have my systems set up to automount my home directory over
> NFS when I log in. When trying to log in to the system with
> 2.6.23-mm1, I get the messages from above in my syslog, and
> the NFS filesystem is not automou
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:16:24 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Oct 22 14:39:01 kenny automount[2299]: cache_readlock: mapent
> > > > > cache rwlock lock failed
> > > > > Oct 22 14:39:01 kenny automount[2299]: unexpected pthreads
> > > > > error: 11 at 65 in cache.c
> I gues
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:07:42 -0400
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:29:26 -0400
> Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:48:51 +0200
> > Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'm getting a process stuck in pthread_rw
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:29:26 -0400
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:48:51 +0200
> Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm getting a process stuck in pthread_rwlock_wrlock(), even
> > > > though it looks like the lock is not held by anybody.
> > > >
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:48:51 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm getting a process stuck in pthread_rwlock_wrlock(), even
> > > though it looks like the lock is not held by anybody.
> > >
> > > I think the last -mm was OK. Any ideas?
> > >
> > > If not, I'll go searching f
> > I'm getting a process stuck in pthread_rwlock_wrlock(), even though it
> > looks like the lock is not held by anybody.
> >
> > I think the last -mm was OK. Any ideas?
> >
> > If not, I'll go searching for the offending patch.
>
> I wonder if that's the same bug that's breaking autofs for me
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:29:07 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm getting a process stuck in pthread_rwlock_wrlock(), even though it
> looks like the lock is not held by anybody.
>
> I think the last -mm was OK. Any ideas?
>
> If not, I'll go searching for the offending patch.
I'm getting a process stuck in pthread_rwlock_wrlock(), even though it
looks like the lock is not held by anybody.
I think the last -mm was OK. Any ideas?
If not, I'll go searching for the offending patch.
Thanks,
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
15 matches
Mail list logo