Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:25:07 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: May 17th UP machine 'panic' Message-ID: <19980525122507.46281@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980525064410.4856A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>; from Michael Hancock on Mon, May 25, 1998 at 06:59:01AM %2B0900 References: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980524140422.3345B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> <Pine.SV4.3.95.980525064410.4856A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 25, 1998 at 06:59:01AM +0900, Michael Hancock wrote: > Tor might have identified the problem. vput() doesn't take a process > argument and always uses curproc. I suggested splitting up the offending > vput() into vrele() and VOP_UNLOCK(). > > So I guess you are right, vput() is assymetric in that it doesn't take a > proc arg, but this would be too much work to fix. How? If it is usually only interested in curproc, doing a search/replace shouldn't be too hard. It is used "only" about 300 places ;-) (There are about five calls to vput that is used on another call, to create trouble for a straight regexp replace. Not so much it would make it hard to handle.) I don't know which effect such a change would have on performance - that's for you expert to answer :-) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980525122507.46281>