From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 22 6:26:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE4811C75 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 06:25:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) Received: (from luoqi@localhost) by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17234; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:25:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from luoqi) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:25:42 -0500 (EST) From: Luoqi Chen Message-Id: <199902221425.JAA17234@lor.watermarkgroup.com> To: dfr@nlsystems.com Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, mjacob@feral.com Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Its certainly better than panicing but I'm still not happy about the > recursion check (which is really just a reentrancy check since no > recursion is actually happening). > > -- > Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com > Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 > I agree. A per-process recursion count is the way to go. -lq To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message