On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 10:15 -0700, Jan Sanislo wrote: > >> > >> After reviewing the patch I found that it still wasn't quite right. > >> > >> The upshot being that we need to go through the test process again > >> (under load, I've tested locally), if possible. Would you be able > >> re-test with this new patch please? > > > > Any news on testing? > > The patch you sent on May 25 has been working perfectly for 3 three > weeks on a heavily used system running a 3.1.7 kernel. > > However, when I (blindly) incorporate that patch into a 3.4.2 kernel > things go south almost immediately. With tracebacks like the following: OK, my original test was done on a somewhat more recent kernel than 3.1.7. I'll re-test on 3.5.0-rc and see how I go. Can you offer any information about the situation when you get these fails? Such as what type of autofs activity was happening, light/heavy mount activity, mounts being attempted simple indirect or direct mounts, IOW what do the maps look like and which type of entries were being used at the time. snip ... > The caveat is that I applied your patch to 3.4.2 without investigating > if there were other changes that might need to be made. And it > had to be done manually since there was an extra line of code in > 3.4.2 that caused one patch chunk to fail. If I can't reproduce the problem I can send over my version of the patch against the kernel you will use if you're able to test it. Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
