On Jul10 07:24, Jeff Layton wrote: > These patches are pretty straightforward. We're just taking an extra > reference to the filp when running lock operations so that it doesn't > disappear before the replies can be processed (typically in the event > that a signal comes in while waiting on the reply). Given the odd stack > trace above, I have to wonder if there's some sort of memory scribble > going on. I was also surprised by such new behavior looking at the impact of those patches. > Just to be clear...you are mounting with NFSv4 and running something on > the mount when you see this, right? If you don't use NFSv4, then is > everything fine? yes, it's nfv4. -- William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
