From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 26 11:11:22 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D3824A4;
 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:11:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from constantine.ingresso.co.uk (constantine.ingresso.co.uk
 [IPv6:2a02:b90:3002:e550::3])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29ED82524;
 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:11:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dilbert.london-internal.ingresso.co.uk ([10.64.50.6]
 helo=dilbert.ingresso.co.uk)
 by constantine.ingresso.co.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256)
 (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>)
 id 1VlGXs-000N3F-Vn; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:11:09 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ingresso.co.uk with local (Exim 4.80.1
 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>)
 id 1VlGXr-000J7k-H7; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:11:07 +0000
To: petefrench@ingresso.co.uk, trociny@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Hast locking up under 9.2
In-Reply-To: <20131125212706.GA6870@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E1VlGXr-000J7k-H7@dilbert.ingresso.co.uk>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:11:07 +0000
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, to.my.trociny@gmail.com
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:11:22 -0000

> It looks you were using the first version of my patch. This was false
> positive: memsyncack may be false here if the request to the secondary
> failed, e.g. due to disconnect. I fixed this later but forgot to
> mention. Please use the latest patch:

Actually, that assertions was from the unpatched code - I should have
made that clear.

> http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/patches/hast.primary.c.memsync_write_complete.2.patch

Will try and give this a test today. My hast stuff is getting a bit more
complex due to the fact I;ve out one of them back into production with
fullsync enabled as I have verified it works like that. WIll try this on the
other drive later today though.

-pete.

,