From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 24 14:05:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E96316A4CE; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:05:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.30.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BAA43D31; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:05:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au) Received: from robbins.dropbear.id.au (202.138.38.219) by smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.0.028) id 412634F30016234B; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:05:17 +1000 Received: by robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D518F41FA; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:05:10 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:05:10 +1000 From: Tim Robbins To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman Message-ID: <20040824140510.GA26058@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <20040824142129.S96700@cvs.imp.ch> <20040824124516.GA25734@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040824144832.S96700@cvs.imp.ch> <20040824125818.GA25828@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20040824133420.GI77326@green.homeunix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040824133420.GI77326@green.homeunix.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: Martin Blapp cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: getnewbuf: locked buf X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:05:18 -0000 On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:34:20AM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:58:18PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:48:57PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > This has already been fixed in -CURRENT and will presumably be merged into > > > > RELENG_5 in the next day or two. > > > > > > Can you point me to the responsable commit ? > > > > kern_lock.c 1.75 > > Releasing 5.3 with lockmgr(9) known-broken in one way versus the other > really is no better. I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that it had been worked around, not fixed, in -CURRENT. This is definitely something that needs to be properly addressed before the release. Tim