Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:28:03 -0700 | From | Tupshin Harper <> | Subject | Re: NFS regression in 2.6 -- gnome problem |
| |
Andries Brouwer wrote:
>It should be. But it isnt. I propose the following patch >(with whitespace damage): > >diff -u --recursive --new-file -X /linux/dontdiff a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c >--- a/fs/nfs/dir.c Fri Jul 11 00:35:26 2003 >+++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c Wed Aug 20 22:38:42 2003 >@@ -671,8 +671,10 @@ > dentry->d_op = &nfs_dentry_operations; > > /* If we're doing an exclusive create, optimize away the lookup */ >- if (nfs_is_exclusive_create(dir, nd)) >+ if (nfs_is_exclusive_create(dir, nd)) { >+ d_add(dentry, NULL); > return NULL; >+ } > > lock_kernel(); > error = nfs_cached_lookup(dir, dentry, &fhandle, &fattr); > >Andries > > > This patch makes the previously posted test work for me, but I'm experiencing a differenct NFS regression between 2.4 and 2.6. Whatever locking method that gnome2 is using when running home directories over nfs is failing when the client is running 2.6. Tried it again, using 2.6.0-test3 + the above patch, and the results are the same. Gnome reports that it failed to lock it's test file, and aborts. It says that the error was "no locks available", but I'm not sure whether to believe that or not. The only differece is booting between 2.4.x and 2.6.x, and it doesn't matter whether the server is running 2.4 or 2.6. Any suggestions?
-Tupshin
- 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/
| |