On 03/29/2013 07:43 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> For now, though, this should fix the bug.
>
> Thanks again for this testing.
With this patch applied on top of 3.8.5 the bug could not be reproduced
any longer (till now).
@Dave
Just Cc:'ed you for your trinity score card
:-)
--
MfG/Sincerely
Tor
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:57:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:35:12PM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > On 03/26/2013 03:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > Can you run with test patches?
> >
> > applied - today I got a warning instead a bug at the host kernel (3.8.4
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:35:12PM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 03/26/2013 03:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Can you run with test patches?
>
> applied - today I got a warning instead a bug at the host kernel (3.8.4):
Excellent! Thanks, I think I see the bug now
--b.
> 2013-03-27T2
On 03/26/2013 03:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Can you run with test patches?
applied - today I got a warning instead a bug at the host kernel (3.8.4):
2013-03-27T22:28:43.480+01:00 n22 kernel: [ cut here ]
2013-03-27T22:28:43.480+01:00 n22 kernel: WARNING: at fs/locks.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 06:20:42PM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 03/26/2013 07:17 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >
> > Bah, too bad. That patch was definitely not a fix, so there may be some
> > race here.
> >
> >> What I get at the host is now :
> >>
> >> 2013-03-26T18:32:17.487+01:00 n22 ker
On 03/26/2013 07:17 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> Bah, too bad. That patch was definitely not a fix, so there may be some
> race here.
>
>> What I get at the host is now :
>>
>> 2013-03-26T18:32:17.487+01:00 n22 kernel: [ cut here
>> ]
>> 2013-03-26T18:32:17.487+01:00 n
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 03/26/2013 03:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Can you run with test patches?
> >
> > This just makes nfsd's fput calls synchronous so that we see in the
> > backtrace who called them.
>
> Well - the patched 3.8.4 host kernel n
On 03/26/2013 03:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Can you run with test patches?
>
> This just makes nfsd's fput calls synchronous so that we see in the
> backtrace who called them.
Well - the patched 3.8.4 host kernel now survives the stress test of the UML
system.
What I get at the host is now
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:46:40AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > fs/locks.c:2093 says that we did the final fput of a file that still had
> > posix locks held on it.
> >
> > I can't see how that would happen, but admittedly the nfsd4 code here is
> > much too complicated for its own good.
> >
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 06:01:43PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > The following bug was triggered twice under a stable 3.8.4 kernel if I
> > export a NFS (v4) directory
> > and mount it within a user mode linux (running at the same syste
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Toralf Förster wrote:
> The following bug was triggered twice under a stable 3.8.4 kernel if I export
> a NFS (v4) directory
> and mount it within a user mode linux (running at the same system) and run
> within that UML trinity
> (16 UML trinity processes
The following bug was triggered twice under a stable 3.8.4 kernel if I export a
NFS (v4) directory
and mount it within a user mode linux (running at the same system) and run
within that UML trinity
(16 UML trinity processes at a 4-core host CPU) with victim files+directories
within that NFS dire
12 matches
Mail list logo
