From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 15 09:59:52 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D791437B401
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061C243F85
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6FGxkVk085626;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h6F4LJCL082696;
	Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200307150421.h6F4LJCL082696@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307141514410.40558-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
	<20030714191735.Y8225@odysseus.silby.com>
cc: arch@freebsd.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: Re: 4.x mbuf binary compatibility; can it be broken?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:59:53 -0000


:> How does it get 255+ references?
:
:I don't know exactly at this point.  I can reproduce the situation at will
:with (in kernel) test code, but I don't know what exactly causes it in the
:wild.
:
:Given that increasing the ref count limit is so easy, I was hoping to
:avoid spending time tracking down one degenerate case. :)
:
:Mike "Silby" Silbersack

    If you just put a KASSERT() in for the 'reached 255' case the backtrace
    will have a good chance of containing the likely culprit.

						-Matt