devfs_d_revalidate_wait adds to a waitqueue but never removes from it
again so we there's one entry full of reused stack space added on
each call (I wonder how this ever worked).
The function has a few more bugs (it effectivly does a sleep_on instead
of checking for the actual even and can't deal with negative dentries
at all), but I just had breakfast and don't want to poke into devfs
internals deeper - I still hope Adam's smalldevfs will get merged
anyway..
--- 1.74/fs/devfs/base.c Mon Mar 17 01:33:08 2003
+++ edited/fs/devfs/base.c Tue Mar 18 09:37:29 2003
@@ -2336,6 +2232,8 @@
wait_queue_head_t wait_queue;
};
+/* XXX: this doesn't handle the case where we got a negative dentry
+ but a devfs entry has been registered in the meanwhile */
static int devfs_d_revalidate_wait (struct dentry *dentry, int flags)
{
struct inode *dir = dentry->d_parent->d_inode;
@@ -2380,6 +2278,7 @@
add_wait_queue (&lookup_info->wait_queue, &wait);
read_unlock (&parent->u.dir.lock);
schedule ();
+ remove_wait_queue (&lookup_info->wait_queue, &wait);
}
else read_unlock (&parent->u.dir.lock);
return 1;
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I still hope Adam's smalldevfs will get merged anyway..
Well me too, but smalldevfs is a bit stalled at present.
It seems to work OK now, but there are a few small incompatibilities with the
current devfs. People need to make adjustments to their initscripts, or to
untar a tarball-of-device-nodes into smalldevfs at boot time.
Like all other kernel developers I do not use devfs and am not really able to
evaluate how serious these problems will be for people.
Adam is disinclined to address these administrative incompatibilites in his
user-space tools. smalldevfs is presently at risk of getting dropped out.
Andrew Morton wrote:
[...]
> It seems to work OK now, but there are a few small incompatibilities with the
> current devfs. People need to make adjustments to their initscripts, or to
> untar a tarball-of-device-nodes into smalldevfs at boot time.
I assume smalldevfs is what you get when you configure devfs in 2.5.64-mm8?
It works fine for me, on smp with debian testing. I changed nothing
at all, and noticed that devfsd didn't run. But it don't seem necessary,
it seems to work even without those compatibility symlinks.
> Adam is disinclined to address these administrative incompatibilites in his
> user-space tools. smalldevfs is presently at risk of getting dropped out.
Please continue, it works and I understand the code is an improvement.
I'll begin testing on my work pc too.
Helge Hafting