lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.110 / U:1.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site