From: Vincent Roqueta Subject: Re: Some interoperability testing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: <200502091120.54161.vincent.roqueta@ext.bull.net> References: <200502071839.24804.vincent.roqueta@ext.bull.net> <1107874199.10364.22.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <200502081643.34440.vincent.roqueta@ext.bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Cyosn-0000p1-Cx for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:15:41 -0800 Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Cyosk-0000ss-Dk for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:15:41 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ecfrec.frec.bull.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBD919D909 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:14:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ecfrec.frec.bull.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24021-03 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:14:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from ecn002.frec.bull.fr (ecn002.frec.bull.fr [129.183.4.6]) by ecfrec.frec.bull.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABD419D907 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:14:52 +0100 (CET) To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <200502081643.34440.vincent.roqueta@ext.bull.net> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Le mardi 8 F=E9vrier 2005 16:43, Vincent Roqueta a =E9crit=A0: > Le mardi 8 F=E9vrier 2005 15:49, Trond Myklebust a =E9crit=A0: > > ty den 08.02.2005 Klokka 10:22 (+0100) skreiv Vincent Roqueta: > > > Since all is right with kernel 2.6.9, that looks like a regression... > > > Even if that is the true behaviour it may exist a way to stop this > > > process cleanly : since NFS umount is can't be done the client does n= ot > > > reboot, and I need to turn the power off... > > > > There were no NFS or RPC client changes made between 2.6.9 and 2.6.10, > > Well... Some littles changes :-) > > I tried various kernel and patches versions since this morning: > linux-2.6.9 -> PASSED > linux-2.6.10-rc1-CITI_NFS4_ALL-2.dif -> PASSED > linux-2.6.10-rc1-CITI_NFS4_ALL-3.dif -> (answer soon) > linux-2.6.10-rc1-CITI_NFS4_ALL-4.dif -> FAILED > > The problem is between in the NFS4_ALL-4.dif or NFS4_ALL-3.dif ... > > > Vincent > Problem is in 2.6.10-rc2-CITI_NFS4_ALL-1 patch set however linux-2.6.10-rc1-CITI_NFS4_ALL-4.dif patch set FAIL _some_ times. I am investigating more to know what patch is wrong. Vincent ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs