Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: problem with 114 sched.* changes (not the gcc one)

# Re: problem with 114 sched.* changes (not the gcc one)

Ion Badulescu (ionut@moisil.cs.columbia.edu)
Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:15:13 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Terry L Ridder: "Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)"
- Previous message: Terry L Ridder: "Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)"

On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 17:26:15 +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> MR> Also, when stracing it I discovered that when nfs modules had been loaded
> MR> befor, it worked. Did some more tests - yes, the same. It hangs without nfs
> MR> (not sure if 100%) and doesn't hang when nfs is loaded or compiled into
> MR> the kernel.
>
> Small correction: when nfs is compiled in kernel, it may still happen.

In fact it happens all the time here.

As a reminder, 2.1.114 causes amd to hang in uninterruptable sleep when it first
tries to mount itself on the first mount point it manages. After that, all NFS
mounts end up in the same situation, probably because the first mount grabs
some semaphore and doesn't release it. NFS mounts are fine though before amd
starts.

The patch below (part of the 2.1.114 patch) is the bare minimum that has to be
reverted from 114 (and 115 as well) to get amd to work correctly. It's definitely
a bandaid rather than a fix, but it might gives someone a lead to the right fix.

Details: Linux/Intel, compiled UP and running on a UP machine. amd forks, then
the child gets an NFS file handle from its parent and passes it to the kernel
to be mounted. And it hangs there..

Ideas, anyone?

Thanks,
Ion

    --
      It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
                than to open it and remove all doubt.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

- Next message: Terry L Ridder: "Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)"
- Previous message: Terry L Ridder: "Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)"