From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 22 16:15:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA06210E5C for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:15:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from localhost (dfr@localhost) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA58971; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:13:52 GMT (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:13:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson To: Luoqi Chen Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, mjacob@feral.com Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update In-Reply-To: <199902221425.JAA17234@lor.watermarkgroup.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote: > > 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. My only worry is that its not clear from the comment exactly what kind of deadlock is being fixed here. If it is a deadlock which could happen for simple reentrancy, then the code should stay as it is. If not, then a different check should be used. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message