On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 06:23:39PM +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> That patch is wrong. We have to use both pinned_sb and new_sb, so
> please revert it. :(
>
> I think we need to put some test cases in tools/testing/selftests/, to
> prevent this fragile thing from breaking again.
Can you please send a p
On 2014/9/25 11:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Al.
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:47:19AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's an ugly thing to work around vfs interface not very
>>> conducive for filesystems which conditionally create or reuse
>>> superblocks during mount. There was a thread expl
Hello, Al.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:47:19AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Yeah, it's an ugly thing to work around vfs interface not very
> > conducive for filesystems which conditionally create or reuse
> > superblocks during mount. There was a thread explaining what's going
> > on. Looking up...
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:24:56PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Lovely... First of all, that thing is obviously racy - there's nothing
> > to prevent another mount happening between these two places. Moreover,
> > kernfs_mount() calling conventions are really atrocious - pointer to
> > bool just
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Could somebody explain WTF is the whole construction trying to do? Not
> to mention anything else, what *does* this pinning a superblock protect
> from? Suppose we have a superblock for the same root with non-NULL ns
> and _that_ gets ki
Hey, Al.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:29:27PM +0400, Andrey Wagin wrote:
> > 2014-09-24 14:31 GMT+04:00 Andrey Wagin :
> > > Hi All,
> >
> > The problem is in a following commit:
> >
> > commit 0c7bf3e8cab7900e17ce7f97104c39927d835469
> >
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:29:27PM +0400, Andrey Wagin wrote:
> 2014-09-24 14:31 GMT+04:00 Andrey Wagin :
> > Hi All,
>
> The problem is in a following commit:
>
> commit 0c7bf3e8cab7900e17ce7f97104c39927d835469
> Author: Zefan Li
> Date: Sat Sep 20 14:49:10 2014 +0800
>
> cgroup: remove
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Andrey Wagin wrote:
> 2014-09-24 14:31 GMT+04:00 Andrey Wagin :
>> Hi All,
>
> The problem is in a following commit:
>
> commit 0c7bf3e8cab7900e17ce7f97104c39927d835469
> Author: Zefan Li
> Date: Sat Sep 20 14:49:10 2014 +0800
>
> cgroup: remove redundant va
2014-09-24 14:31 GMT+04:00 Andrey Wagin :
> Hi All,
>
> I execute CRIU tests on linux-next. Today I found that one of tests
> hangs up forever.
>
> [root@linux-next-test linux-next]# git describe HEAD
> next-20140922
> [root@linux-next-test ~]# ps axf
> ...
> 698 ?Ss 0:05 \_ sshd: ro
2014-09-24 14:31 GMT+04:00 Andrey Wagin :
> Hi All,
The problem is in a following commit:
commit 0c7bf3e8cab7900e17ce7f97104c39927d835469
Author: Zefan Li
Date: Sat Sep 20 14:49:10 2014 +0800
cgroup: remove redundant variable in cgroup_mount()
Both pinned_sb and new_sb indicate if a
Hi All,
I execute CRIU tests on linux-next. Today I found that one of tests
hangs up forever.
[root@linux-next-test linux-next]# git describe HEAD
next-20140922
[root@linux-next-test ~]# ps axf
...
698 ?Ss 0:05 \_ sshd: root@notty
700 ?Ss 0:00 | \_ bash -x
jenkins-
11 matches
Mail list logo
