Return-Path: Received: from mail4.gandi.net ([217.70.183.210]:57068 "EHLO gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752712AbbGJLhE (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:37:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:36:58 +0200 From: William Dauchy To: Jeff Layton Cc: William Dauchy , Linux NFS mailing list , Trond Myklebust , jloup@gandi.net Subject: Re: extra reference to fl->fl_file, possible regression Message-ID: <20150710113657.GJ15144@gandi.net> References: <20150710092910.GI15144@gandi.net> <20150710072438.08b3417a@tlielax.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="enLffk0M6cffIOOh" In-Reply-To: <20150710072438.08b3417a@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --enLffk0M6cffIOOh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. --=20 William --enLffk0M6cffIOOh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlWfrlkACgkQ1I6eqOUidQEfmwCaAixvTc/tJLembcmv1tVGQQc1 wMsAnjv6bBMdqt1nSfZe0Y48pG9KtC9V =N89v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --enLffk0M6cffIOOh--