[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Inotify problem [was Re: 2.6.13-rc6-mm1]
John McCutchan wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
>>Robert Love wrote:
>>>On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
>>I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
>>problem usage. To this end, from the log it appears that you _might_ be
>>moving between 0, 1 and 2 entries increasing the number each time. It
>>also appears that the failure happens here:
>>add 1023
>>add 1024
>>find 1024 or is it the remove that fails? It also looks like 1024 got
>>allocated twice. Am I reading the log correctly?
> You are reading the log correctly. There are two bugs. One is that if we
> pass X to idr_get_new_above, it can return X again (doesn't ever seem to
> return < X). The other problem is that the find fails on 1024 (and 2048
> if we skip 1024).

That IS strange. 1024 is on a "level" boundry, but then next level is
2**15, not 2**11. I will take a look.

>>So, is it correct to assume that the tree is empty save these two at
>>this time? I am just trying to figure out what the test program needs
>>to do.
> Yes that is the exact scenario. Only 2 id's are used at any given time,
> and once we hit 1024 things break. This doesn't happen when the tree is
> not empty.
> Thanks for looking at this!

George Anzinger
HRT (High-res-timers):
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-26 01:13    [W:0.028 / U:4.556 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site