From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Tue Dec 19 18:38:31 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB2DE96D54 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:38:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A27E64F1F for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:38:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id vBJIcUuw026924 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:38:31 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 224176] Lock Order Reversals somewhere in VFS/UFS Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:38:31 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: wosch@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: Not A Bug X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:38:31 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D224176 --- Comment #8 from Wolfram Schneider --- (In reply to Andriy Gapon from comment #7) 99.9% of these kernel warnings are false positives. We scare our users. We shouldn't. I see two options to solve the issue: 1. "If we could identify the harmless ones accurately, we may as well not p= rint them at all." (Conrad) 2. tell the users that they can ignore these warnings as long as the machine runs fine. I prefer 1), but in the meantime we should do 2) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=