Re: sysclt messages with 2.1.88
ak@muc.de
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:24:22 +0100
On Sat, Feb 21, 1998 at 07:42:06PM +0100, Bill Hawes wrote:
> A.N.Kuznetsov wrote:
> >
> > In article <k2wweoud5g.fsf@zero.aec.at> you wrote:
> > : > unregister_proc_table: neigh not empty!
> > : > unregister_proc_table: ipv4 not empty!
> > : > unregister_proc_table: net not empty!
> > : >
> > : > What was going on (and wrong)?
> >
> > : Just comment out the printk in kernel/sysctl.c. It is harmless.
> >
> > Are you sure? I am not. It is possible this operation results in
> > some zombie d_entry or inode. That guy who inserted
> > these printks is likely to have any resons to make it.
> > Actually, it would be intersting to know his opinion.
>
> I put the message in originally while looking for potential problems in freeing
> sysctl table memory. At the time I was concerned that if a /proc entry wasn't
> deleted immediately, it would never get freed.
>
> But actually the case is that several sysctl tables may have pointers to the
> same /proc subdir, and only the last sysctl to be freed would actually release
> the /proc dir. (At the time of the last free the /proc subdir should be empty so
> that it can be removed).
>
> So the messages should be harmless and can be removed.
Great. Here is a patch to do this, Linus could you please add it for 2.1.89?
--- kernel/sysctl.c Sun Feb 1 08:47:29 1998
+++ kernel/sysctl.c Sat Feb 21 22:21:36 1998
@@ -530,9 +523,7 @@
proc_unregister(root, de->low_ino);
table->de = NULL;
kfree(de);
- } else
- printk("unregister_proc_table: %s not empty!\n",
- table->procname);
+ }
}
}
-Andi
P.S.: Bill, did you ever look at the open_by_inode() function for dentries
I sent you a few weeks ago?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu