Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:52:14 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Thomas David Rivers <ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Even more info on daily panics... Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961113134357.11206A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199611130143.UAA16800@lakes.water.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
IMHO, it's not good to speculate. You need to confirm with absolute certainty that the patch is what actually fixed it. You might want to do either of the following: 1) Remove the patch and see if what happens. 2) Put in print statements and see if the relevent section of code ever gets executed. See other #ifdef DIAGNOSTICS for examples of how to do this. I think vrele() had one. Regards, Mike Hancock On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > > Well - just a status update... > > It's now been 5+ days since I installed the kernel with > the vrele() panic and Terry's other vfs_subr.c fix... > > The machine has yet to panic, at all...: > > ponds# uptime > 8:31PM up 5 days, 7:34, 1 user, load averages: 0.33, 0.55, 0.60 > > At this point, my only explanation is that I must have > installed the wrong kernel when originally testing Terry's > change to vfs_subr.c; and, in fact, Terry's suggested change > to not walk around the end of the list is the reason for > the success I'm having. It seems to me it couldn't have > been the other change to vrele() which is simply to add > some consistency checks that weren't present before. > > I'd like to ensure this improvement makes it into 2.1.6... (I believe > it's already in -current.) Who do I talk to for that? > > - Dave Rivers - >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.961113134357.11206A-100000>