Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262948AbVEGKQH (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2005 06:16:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262949AbVEGKQH (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2005 06:16:07 -0400 Received: from willy.net1.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:54537 "EHLO willy.net1.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262948AbVEGKQB (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2005 06:16:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 12:06:51 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Dimitris Zilaskos , openafs-info@openafs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Openafs 1.3.78 and kernel 2.4.29 oopses , same for 2.4.30 and openafs 1.3.82 Message-ID: <20050507100651.GA18380@alpha.home.local> References: <20050506052803.GE777@alpha.home.local> <20050506165033.GA2105@logos.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050506165033.GA2105@logos.cnet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1544 Lines: 35 On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:50:33PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > Oopses on an openafs client system using openafs 1.3.78 and kernel 2.4.29. > > > Oopses also occur afer moving to kernel 2.4.30 and openafs 1.3.82 > > > > The problem you encounter on 2.4.30 is not the same as on 2.4.29. The problem > > in 2.4.29 is related to link_path_walk, which has been fixed in 2.4.30. > > Willy, > > The link_path_walk fix in v2.4.30 is related to a reference counting > bug triggered by "umount"... Hmmm... you're right Marcelo, sorry for the confusion. When I saw 'link_path_walk' in Dimitris' trace, it recalled me something, and I saw the recent fix for an oops which I thought related, but apparently not. > As Christoph noted OpenAFS seems to be doing nasty things... it seems > to play with dentries inode i_state directly? If that is the case, > maybe it should define d_iput? I don't know, but clearly if it's doing dirty tricks, it's not surprizing that even small changes from 2.4.29 to 2.4.30 can trigger or hide the bugs. He should try to decorellate openafs and kernel versions. Trying 1.3.82 on top of 2.4.29 (or even -hf) would probably show that he gets the same bugs as on 2.4.30, thus leading to the conclusion that the difference lies in the openafs upgrade. Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/