Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:02:49 -0600 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held Message-ID: <20080126230249.GA5183@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <479B6303.6000401@FreeBSD.org> References: <790a9fff0801150552l542a4238ofc12efe5fdb45fc2@mail.gmail.com> <20080115143924.GB57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20080124122808.GA15600@freefall.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10801240518i6e18b2f5w84de652d4170c95b@mail.gmail.com> <20080124145811.GB78114@comp.chem.msu.su> <3bbf2fe10801240707o72b927cg74dbf9b7bbcd88fc@mail.gmail.com> <20080125075551.GB21633@comp.chem.msu.su> <3bbf2fe10801250000k5852c2f2j5d1897c900096818@mail.gmail.com> <20080126142901.GD49535@comp.chem.msu.su> <479B6303.6000401@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:42:43AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > IMO if we're going to ship NTFS support in the base it should actually > function, or at minimum not panic the box. This is a symptom of a general problem, "things that we doubt work very well". What's your suggestion on how we can flag these? The traditional argument is that if we don't ship code in the base, it will never get tested. IMHO it would a big change to turn off everything that isn't 100% solid. I'm open to suggestions. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080126230249.GA5183>