no further nfsd-fh: found a name that I didn't expect

no further nfsd-fh: found a name that I didn't expect

[Bernd Schubert]

Hello!

I just wanted to report that we are now running the iget5-patched 2.4.20 
kernel for almost 2 month and never saw the ' nfsd-fh: found ....' messsages 
ever again. Well, we once rebooted and used by accident the wrong 
kernel-image and of course had problems again until the next reboot.

Btw, is the iget4()-fix in 2.4.21-rc3 the same patch ?


Thanks again for your great work,
	Bernd



-- 
Bernd Schubert
Physikalisch Chemisches Institut
Abt. Theoretische Chemie
Universität Heidelberg
INF 229
69120 Heidelberg
e-mail: bernd.schubert@pci.uni-h	eidelberg.de

Re: no further nfsd-fh: found a name that I didn't expect

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:03:47PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:

> I just wanted to report that we are now running the iget5-patched 2.4.20 
> kernel for almost 2 month and never saw the ' nfsd-fh: found ....' messsages 

Hm. I thought that iget5_locked patch had wrong port to 2.4.20 and everybody had problems with it.
There was another minimal 2.4.20 patch that only touched reiserfs stuff and that was recommended to use.

> ever again. Well, we once rebooted and used by accident the wrong 
> kernel-image and of course had problems again until the next reboot.

> Btw, is the iget4()-fix in 2.4.21-rc3 the same patch ?

No, this is not iget5_locked (we plan to push it in 2.4.22pre time),
this is minimal fix instead.

Thanks for letting us know that it solved your problem. One bug less to track.

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: no further nfsd-fh: found a name that I didn't expect

[Bernd Schubert]

> Hm. I thought that iget5_locked patch had wrong port to 2.4.20 and
> everybody had problems with it. There was another minimal 2.4.20 patch that
> only touched reiserfs stuff and that was recommended to use.

Oh sorry, actually I was referring to the minimal patch.

>
> > ever again. Well, we once rebooted and used by accident the wrong
> > kernel-image and of course had problems again until the next reboot.
> >
> > Btw, is the iget4()-fix in 2.4.21-rc3 the same patch ?
>
> No, this is not iget5_locked (we plan to push it in 2.4.22pre time),
> this is minimal fix instead.

Great, so we won't see this problem even without patching.


Have a nice weekend,
	Bernd

Re: no further nfsd-fh: found a name that I didn't expect

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:20:36PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > > ever again. Well, we once rebooted and used by accident the wrong
> > > kernel-image and of course had problems again until the next reboot.
> > > Btw, is the iget4()-fix in 2.4.21-rc3 the same patch ?
> > No, this is not iget5_locked (we plan to push it in 2.4.22pre time),
> > this is minimal fix instead.
> Great, so we won't see this problem even without patching.

It seems so.

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: no further nfsd-fh: found a name that I didn't expect

[Soeren Sonnenburg]

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 09:05, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:20:36PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > > > ever again. Well, we once rebooted and used by accident the wrong
> > > > kernel-image and of course had problems again until the next reboot.
> > > > Btw, is the iget4()-fix in 2.4.21-rc3 the same patch ?
> > > No, this is not iget5_locked (we plan to push it in 2.4.22pre time),
> > > this is minimal fix instead.
> > Great, so we won't see this problem even without patching.
> 
> It seems so.

well it strongly seems so... as we also had this problem and it did also
not occur for the last 52 days since we applied that patch...

S.