On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 03:14 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:03:38AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > > I also have a sick feeling that dentrys may become negative at any point > > after __d_lookup_rcu() ..... > > Yes. To get stability of ->d_inode (assuming the sucker isn't pinned down > in normal way by ->d_count) you need ->d_lock. > > > > Ho-hum... I can reach RHTS, but I'd rather do that at home boxen, if > > > possible... Has it been reproduced on UP boxen with SMP kernels, BTW? > > > > Nope, I'd need to build a kernel specifically for that. I'm not sure how > > useful that would be though since the test is specifically meant to > > expose problems with multiple concurrent processes accessing an > > automount tree. I don't see any problem running the Connectathon tests > > which is essentially one automount and one client process. > > Heh... No, it's just that the only SMP box I have locally right now > is dual ultrasparc. Anyway, I can live with RHTS. If you want to get hold of the test I'm using checkout autofs-RHEL-5, "cd autofs-tests/submount-test", "make rpm" and use the resulting rh-tests-autofs-submount-test-1.0-15.noarch.rpm. There are some beaker/rhts rpm dependencies. Let me know if it gets painful and I'll try and work out what you need. The test isn't very flash but it does stress autofs. Ha, I haven't even turned on my Ultrsparc 2 in months, it's only got an old version of Solaris on it now anyway, ;) -- 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
