From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: something changed from 4 to 5 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:14:45 +0800 Message-ID: <48B21595.2030600@themaw.net> References: <1218596289.3148.8.camel@raven.themaw.net> <48B0E465.80701@themaw.net> <48B0ED9B.5080103@themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Joe Pruett Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org Joe Pruett wrote: >> And the call to access(2) is seen in the first backtrace as waiting >> on an nfs mount and any other processes calling to access(2) should >> wait on the first in this case, since the path includes the same mount. >> >> When this happens you could also try looking for mount processes to >> match them to those in the backtraces but if any have died that >> should result in the daemon continuing. So it's a bit puzzling. > > i don't think there are any mount processes hanging around. i'll look > the next time it happens. > > what is the best way to get debugging output? -l debug? or -d? or > both? You need to be concerned with what is being sent to syslog as well. Have a look at http://people.redhat.com/jmoyer.