Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:20:03 +0200 From: "Pavel Polyakov" <bsd@kobyla.org> To: "Pavel Polyakov" <bsd@kobyla.org>, "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, daichi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lock violation in unionfs (9.0-STABLE r230270) Message-ID: <op.waqux6rr9gyv16@cel.home> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndAFMV2iHcMKvMruCP%2BHRzwQuY1Jcd_o6ZEnTCiPV8_8oA@mail.gmail.com> References: <op.v9l1byf89gyv16@pp> <CAJ-FndAFMV2iHcMKvMruCP%2BHRzwQuY1Jcd_o6ZEnTCiPV8_8oA@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
>> 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.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.waqux6rr9gyv16>