From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 13 09:34:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA29992 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:34:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA29986 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA22406; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:22:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199611131722.KAA22406@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Even more info on daily panics... To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:22:25 -0700 (MST) Cc: ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com, Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Michael Hancock" at Nov 13, 96 01:52:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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.