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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.waqux6rr9gyv16>