On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since next-20080630:
>
> New tree: ttydev - unfortunately it had to be reverted because of build
> failures after lots of conflict resolution (which may have caused the
> build failures).
>
> Changed tree: the cris tree changed branch names.
>
> The sched tree gained a couple of conflicts against the ftrace and
> cpus4096 trees.
>
> The pci tree gained a conflict against the x86 tree.
>
> The usb tree reverted due to a build failure after merging with the pci
> tree was changed for a fixup patch.
>
> The v4l-dvb tree lost its three conflicts against Linus' tree.
>
> The s390 tree gained a conflict against the diver-core tree.
>
> The ide tree fixed its build problems.
>
> The nfsd tree lost a conflict against the nfs tree.
>
> The powerpc tree gained a conflict against the ide tree.
>
> The net tree gained two conflicts against the powerpc tree.
>
> The galak tree lost its conflict against the net tree.
>
> the blk-removal tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree.
>
> The firmware tree lost several conflicts against the net tree so didn't
> need a commit reverted any more.
>
> Merging the ttydev tree got several conflicts against the usb and
> firmware trees. Unfortunately, it also would not build and so was
> reverted.
>
> I have also applied the following patches for know problems:
> module: fix NULL pointer dereference in find_symbol()
I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this sort in
dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
[ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
[ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
[ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
[ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
linux-next from yesterday was fine with the same .config .
Thanks,
Rafael
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Changes since next-20080630:
> >
> > New tree: ttydev - unfortunately it had to be reverted because of build
> > failures after lots of conflict resolution (which may have caused the
> > build failures).
> >
> > Changed tree: the cris tree changed branch names.
> >
> > The sched tree gained a couple of conflicts against the ftrace and
> > cpus4096 trees.
> >
> > The pci tree gained a conflict against the x86 tree.
> >
> > The usb tree reverted due to a build failure after merging with the pci
> > tree was changed for a fixup patch.
> >
> > The v4l-dvb tree lost its three conflicts against Linus' tree.
> >
> > The s390 tree gained a conflict against the diver-core tree.
> >
> > The ide tree fixed its build problems.
> >
> > The nfsd tree lost a conflict against the nfs tree.
> >
> > The powerpc tree gained a conflict against the ide tree.
> >
> > The net tree gained two conflicts against the powerpc tree.
> >
> > The galak tree lost its conflict against the net tree.
> >
> > the blk-removal tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree.
> >
> > The firmware tree lost several conflicts against the net tree so didn't
> > need a commit reverted any more.
> >
> > Merging the ttydev tree got several conflicts against the usb and
> > firmware trees. Unfortunately, it also would not build and so was
> > reverted.
> >
> > I have also applied the following patches for know problems:
> > module: fix NULL pointer dereference in find_symbol()
>
> I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this sort in
> dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
>
> [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
> [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
> [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
> [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
>
> linux-next from yesterday was fine with the same .config .
Same problem for me. Thanks for reporting it.
I wondered if it was something that I did wrong...
--
~Randy
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since next-20080630:
>>
>> New tree: ttydev - unfortunately it had to be reverted because of
>> build
>> failures after lots of conflict resolution (which may have caused the
>> build failures).
>>
>> Changed tree: the cris tree changed branch names.
>>
>> The sched tree gained a couple of conflicts against the ftrace and
>> cpus4096 trees.
>>
>> The pci tree gained a conflict against the x86 tree.
>>
>> The usb tree reverted due to a build failure after merging with the
>> pci
>> tree was changed for a fixup patch.
>>
>> The v4l-dvb tree lost its three conflicts against Linus' tree.
>>
>> The s390 tree gained a conflict against the diver-core tree.
>>
>> The ide tree fixed its build problems.
>>
>> The nfsd tree lost a conflict against the nfs tree.
>>
>> The powerpc tree gained a conflict against the ide tree.
>>
>> The net tree gained two conflicts against the powerpc tree.
>>
>> The galak tree lost its conflict against the net tree.
>>
>> the blk-removal tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree.
>>
>> The firmware tree lost several conflicts against the net tree so
>> didn't
>> need a commit reverted any more.
>>
>> Merging the ttydev tree got several conflicts against the usb and
>> firmware trees. Unfortunately, it also would not build and so was
>> reverted.
>>
>> I have also applied the following patches for know problems:
>> module: fix NULL pointer dereference in find_symbol()
>
> I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this
> sort in
> dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
>
> [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
> [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
> [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
> [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
>
> linux-next from yesterday was fine with the same .config .
What's your mount command line?
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 1 of July 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Changes since next-20080630:
> >>
> >> New tree: ttydev - unfortunately it had to be reverted because of
> >> build
> >> failures after lots of conflict resolution (which may have caused the
> >> build failures).
> >>
> >> Changed tree: the cris tree changed branch names.
> >>
> >> The sched tree gained a couple of conflicts against the ftrace and
> >> cpus4096 trees.
> >>
> >> The pci tree gained a conflict against the x86 tree.
> >>
> >> The usb tree reverted due to a build failure after merging with the
> >> pci
> >> tree was changed for a fixup patch.
> >>
> >> The v4l-dvb tree lost its three conflicts against Linus' tree.
> >>
> >> The s390 tree gained a conflict against the diver-core tree.
> >>
> >> The ide tree fixed its build problems.
> >>
> >> The nfsd tree lost a conflict against the nfs tree.
> >>
> >> The powerpc tree gained a conflict against the ide tree.
> >>
> >> The net tree gained two conflicts against the powerpc tree.
> >>
> >> The galak tree lost its conflict against the net tree.
> >>
> >> the blk-removal tree gained a conflict against the s390 tree.
> >>
> >> The firmware tree lost several conflicts against the net tree so
> >> didn't
> >> need a commit reverted any more.
> >>
> >> Merging the ttydev tree got several conflicts against the usb and
> >> firmware trees. Unfortunately, it also would not build and so was
> >> reverted.
> >>
> >> I have also applied the following patches for know problems:
> >> module: fix NULL pointer dereference in find_symbol()
> >
> > I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this
> > sort in
> > dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
> >
> > [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
> > [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
> > [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
> > [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
> >
> > linux-next from yesterday was fine with the same .config .
>
> What's your mount command line?
albercik:~ # mount -t nfs chimera:/home/rafael/src src/
mount.nfs: Input/output error
Thanks,
Rafael
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 22:36 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this sort in
> dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
>
> [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
> [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
> [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
> [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
Does this patch fix the problem for you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
NFS: Fix the mount protocol defaults for binary mounts
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
---
fs/nfs/super.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
index e09b1c2..85fbb98 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
@@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ static int nfs_validate_mount_data(void *options,
if (!(data->flags & NFS_MOUNT_TCP))
args->nfs_server.protocol = XPRT_TRANSPORT_UDP;
+ nfs_set_transport_defaults(args);
/* N.B. caller will free nfs_server.hostname in all cases */
args->nfs_server.hostname = kstrdup(data->hostname, GFP_KERNEL);
args->namlen = data->namlen;
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
[email protected]
http://www.netapp.com
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:49:03 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 22:36 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this sort in
> > dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
> >
> > [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
> > [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
> > [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
> > [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
>
> Does this patch fix the problem for you?
Yes. Thanks.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> NFS: Fix the mount protocol defaults for binary mounts
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> fs/nfs/super.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
> index e09b1c2..85fbb98 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
> @@ -1575,6 +1575,7 @@ static int nfs_validate_mount_data(void *options,
>
> if (!(data->flags & NFS_MOUNT_TCP))
> args->nfs_server.protocol = XPRT_TRANSPORT_UDP;
> + nfs_set_transport_defaults(args);
> /* N.B. caller will free nfs_server.hostname in all cases */
> args->nfs_server.hostname = kstrdup(data->hostname, GFP_KERNEL);
> args->namlen = data->namlen;
>
>
> --
---
~Randy
Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/
On Wednesday, 2 of July 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:49:03 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 22:36 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I can't mount NFS shares with this kernel. I get something of this sort in
> > > dmesg and it seems to be 100% reproducible:
> > >
> > > [ 314.058858] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
> > > [ 314.058863] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
> > > [ 314.490970] RPC: transport (0) not supported
> > > [ 319.246987] __ratelimit: 23 messages suppressed
> >
> > Does this patch fix the problem for you?
>
> Yes. Thanks.
It also fixes the issue for me.
Thanks,
Rafael