From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 7 0:32: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A20C14E1C for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 00:31:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA26463; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:31:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Luoqi Chen Cc: jazepeda@pacbell.net, brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU, current@FreeBSD.ORG, vallo@matti.ee Subject: Re: mount(2) broken? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Dec 1999 02:16:29 EST." <199912070716.CAA16646@lor.watermarkgroup.com> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 09:31:09 +0100 Message-ID: <26461.944555469@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199912070716.CAA16646@lor.watermarkgroup.com>, Luoqi Chen writes: >I'd like to add something about the last buffer wouldn't sync. This occurs >when a shutdown syscall is issued when the syncer process is asleep waiting >for a buffer write to complete. The write will never complete, because the >syncer won't be given a chance to run again, and the buffer will stay marked >as busy and become the buffer that wouldn't sync. I haven't thought about >a clean way of handling this situation, maybe some of you out there have >better ideas... I always thought it would make sense to have the syncer perform the shutdown and cleanup since it had code to write buffers with anyway... -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message