Hi Ian, Have you had a chance to look at getting autofs4 lookup/revalidate adjusted so that this real_lookup() fix[1] can go in? Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help here. If you're still occupied, I'm happy to spin something up and send it your way... just let me know. thanks- sage [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=123749395609697&w=2 On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ian Kent wrote: > Sage Weil wrote: > >> Latest here works OK. > >> > >> I haven't finished checking yet but it looks like the patch below works > >> OK. I started with a 2.6.29 build with your two patches but it was a > >> little broken so I fell back to a Fedora 2.6.27 based kernel without the > >> two revalidate pacthes to debug it. So I still need to test the result > >> against 2.6.29 again. I also don't have any real way to test for the three > >> process race we discussed where the revalidate isn't followed by a > >> ->lookup() but with both of your patches applied that shouldn't be a > >> problem (as we discussed). > >> > >> I've not run checkpatch.pl against the patch either at this stage. > > > > That's good news... > > I'm still working on this too. > I have some pressing work so it may be a while before I'm totally happy > with the patch. Didn't you say you were expecting a 2.6.31 time frame > for this? > > > > >> There is a further issue and that is regarding the autofs module. > >> > >> I can't see updating autofs for this being practical (although I haven't > >> actually looked yet). I suspect quite a bit of work would be needed. The > >> fact is that autofs isn't used much any more and it really should be > >> replaced with the autofs4 module at some point. But that's a fairly tricky > >> exercise and will likely cause some user space breakage. It will require > >> an updated module-init-tools to add "alais autofs4 autofs" for modprobe > >> backward compatibility and will break for any explicit checks for the > >> presence of the "autofs4" module. > > > > Hmm. Well, I assume autofs needs to work properly before this gets > > changed, though, right? Should I see what I can do with it? I took a > > quick look, and I don't think it will take too much to make it behave. > > It looks like the main thing is to make the lookup call to try_fill_dentry > > return any existing dentry in place of the one the vfs provides. > > Yes, or be replaced by what is currently the autofs4 module. The autofs > v2 communication protocol surely can't be being used any more and the > autofs4 module supports versions 3, 4 and 5. In fact I received a mail > from HPA recently suggesting he supports doing this. > > I had a quick look as well. I think you'll find it isn't quite as simple > as that. I'll have a closer look as soon as I get a chance. > > > Ian > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
