Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:32:18 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, daichi@freebsd.org, Pavel Polyakov <bsd@kobyla.org> Subject: Re: lock violation in unionfs (9.0-STABLE r230270) Message-ID: <CAJ-FndD_N2Bib1qXgFHNkKRFckvT13MGb3w-e7v4mZ=5jc6c%2Bg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5022840B.3060708@omnilan.de> References: <op.v9l1byf89gyv16@pp> <CAJ-FndAFMV2iHcMKvMruCP%2BHRzwQuY1Jcd_o6ZEnTCiPV8_8oA@mail.gmail.com> <op.waqux6rr9gyv16@cel.home> <5022840B.3060708@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/8/12, Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> wrote: > schrieb Pavel Polyakov am 06.03.2012 11:20 (localtime): >>>> mount -t unionfs -o noatime /usr /mnt >>>> >>>> insmntque: mp-safe fs and non-locked vp: 0xfffffe01d96704f0 is not >>>> exclusive locked but should be >>>> KDB: enter: lock violation >>> >>> Pavel, >>> can you give a spin to this patch?: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch >>> >>> I think that the unlocking is due at that point as the vnode lock can >>> be switch later on. >>> >>> Let me know what you think about it and what the test does. >> >> Thanks! >> This patch fixes the problem with lock violation. Sorry I've tested it so >> late. > > Hello, > > this patch still applies cleanly to RELENG_9_1. Was there another fix > for the issue or has it just not been PR-sent and thus forgotten? There are more things to fix in inode instantiation for unionfs. I hope to make a comprehensive patch for tests in a couple of days. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndD_N2Bib1qXgFHNkKRFckvT13MGb3w-e7v4mZ=5jc6c%2Bg>