From: Ingo Oeser (
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 15:41:22 EST

On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:24:19PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> > No, so have to unlock it also, if you return -ENOSPC.
> >
> > So the correct fix seems to be:
> > This currently works for me (but using 2.4.0 + dwg-ramfs.patch + this patch)
> Have you stressed it? (I see leakiness)

I do reads and writes to it every 5 seconds and sometimes more (
mounted on /tmp, /var/run and the like ) and had an uptime of
about a week (I use it in an embedded-like system and we
sometimes change the system image).

There might be a dentry or inode leak, but that doesn't bite me,
because I only create the files I need once and extend or shrink

But I couldn't stress it too much.

Where exactly do you see the leaks?

PS: For reference, I put the diff to 2.4.0 that I use to

   The original patch has _not_ been done by me, but by
   David Gibson, Linuxcare Australia.

PPS: It would be surprising anyway, if I used the right patch all
   the time, while the wrong one was in acX. That's why I didn't
   submit anything ;-)


Ingo Oeser

10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <>
         <<<<<<<<<<<<       come and join the fun       >>>>>>>>>>>>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 21:00:16 EST