On Mon, 29 May 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
> Ok, I found dcache-ac4-A. I don't see anything that should break us, and
> it is holding up well so far in testing.
>
> Inside reiserfs_read_super, we have a failure path that calls
> dput(s->s_root). This looks ok to me, but please let me know if I'm
> missing something...
Umm... It's harmless, but probably not needed - would be cleaned up
anyway. Check for places where you
a) do dget()
b) access any of dcache lists (->d_alias, ->i_dentry, ->d_child,
->d_subdirs)
c) use ->fs->{root,rootmnt,pwd,pwdmnt} (explicitly, that is).
> Looks like a spin_unlock is missing during unmount, this patch fixed it
> for me (against 2.4.0-test1-ac4+dcache-ac4-A)
<blinks> WTF, I had fixed that typo on Friday... Wait-a-minute... Damn.
Sorry about that - diff to the botched tree (two parallel families, one
for builds and testing and another for clean diffs; looks like I didn't
apply that one to the clean ;-<) Oh, well...
Anyway, I'm dropping the current variant (diff between -ac4 and build
tree after make distclean, so this one should not contain such turds) to
ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/dcache-ac4-C.gz. New stuff: minimal (not
mountable) sockfs + killing off the kludges in procfs that had been used
for sockets/pipes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:21 EST