From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 17 18:25: 2 2000 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 17 18:24:59 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from assaris.sics.se (dyna225-150.nada.kth.se [130.237.225.150]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D3237B400; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from assar@localhost) by assaris.sics.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA67943; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 03:25:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from assar) Sender: assar@assaris.sics.se From: assar@FreeBSD.ORG To: Bosko Milekic Cc: John Baldwin , Doug Barton , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related References: Date: 18 Dec 2000 03:25:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: Bosko Milekic's message of "Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:21:44 -0500 (EST)" Message-ID: <5ly9xe8o03.fsf@assaris.sics.se> Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070098 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.98) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Bosko Milekic writes: > I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process > pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case? One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when following symbolic links. namei() calls VOP_READLINK with proc == NULL. > And if so, why is nfs_msg() being called with this pointer being > passed in in the first place? Because the code doesn't check? I thought it was easier to have the check in nfs_msg, but it's only called in two places so doing the check there should also work. /assar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message