Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:22:25 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com, Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Even more info on daily panics... Message-ID: <199611131722.KAA22406@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961113134357.11206A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> from "Michael Hancock" at Nov 13, 96 01:52:14 pm
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. I agree. Your theory about the compiler bug and vrele() may be remote, but it's still a possibility. > You might want to do either of the following: > > 1) Remove the patch and see if what happens. This would be a good plan. > 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. I'd suggest an if/printf for the old boundry condition; I'd prefer taking the fix out to get the original panics, with no other unrelated changes. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611131722.KAA22406>