From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:20:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:20:09 -0500 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:52223 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 16:19:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15389.4070.855955.296791@charged.uio.no> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:19:34 +0100 To: Dave Jones Cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: More fun with fsx. In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <15388.60557.527680.468341@charged.uio.no> X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Dave Jones writes: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> I found the bug. It's a pretty ugly race... > Well, you found _a_ bug perhaps, but not this one.. Still > repeatedly fails in exactly the same part with your second > patch applied instead. In that case, I'll need a tcpdump of the point at which the error occurs. I'm unable to produce any problem whatsoever with the new patch applied. Certainly not an EIO: that can normally only occur if you are using soft mounts (which I assume is not the case?) or if the server is screwed up... Cheers, Trond