Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 03:53:19 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: michaelh@cet.co.jp, tlambert@primenet.com, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: May 17th UP machine 'panic' Message-ID: <19980526035319.63753@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199805252236.RAA10906@dyson.iquest.net>; from John S. Dyson on Mon, May 25, 1998 at 05:36:36PM -0500 References: <19980525140435.34553@follo.net> <199805252236.RAA10906@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(moved to fs@freebsd.org) On Mon, May 25, 1998 at 05:36:36PM -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: [... on vput...] > It is a very good idea to explicitly pass down curproc. I am still working > on SMP issues, and I believe that it will be a good investment. OK, let us just for the sake of argument say that I've got a rough patch (3 hours of work) and have put it on http://www.freebsd.org/~eivind/vput-proc.patch Where would I go from here? How do I test this without burning my filesystems? Have anybody got any testsuites they believe to be relevant? Oh, and can somebody tell me if cnp->cn_proc is generally usable as a 'relevant process pointer', or if I should keep it to areas where it is already used (as I did in the rough patch)? Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980526035319.63753>