From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 18:45:40 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DAF106564A for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:45:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDE58FC22 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:45:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 3240 invoked by uid 399); 10 Feb 2009 18:45:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.19?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 10 Feb 2009 18:45:37 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4991CB51.2060609@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:45:37 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <1233007263.9302.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <498EB79F.4010905@FreeBSD.org> <4990A73D.6060108@FreeBSD.org> <200902100942.34044.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200902100942.34044.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sean.bruno@dsl-only.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, sbruno@freebsd.org, Martin Subject: Re: UFS Witness LoR + 5 other LoRs X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:45:40 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 09 February 2009 4:59:25 pm Doug Barton wrote: >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> Several of these are widely reported, and harmless >> Given that we're coming closer and closer to the time when 8.x will be >> in pre-release slush, shouldn't at least some of these get fixed >> soonish? If for no other reason than to make it easier to detect real >> problems when they arise. > > Most of these LORs have been present in the tree since at least the unified > buffer-cache work back in FreeBSD 2.x. We just did not have the tools to > report them prior to 8.x. I'm not saying that I think the ones that are oft-reported are harmful. I'm saying that they ought to be fixed so that when harmful ones do show up it's easier to spot them. FWIW, I had an experience similar to the OP. I have several LORs that show up every time I boot which I try to ignore. However, I recently had a problem with my current laptop NFS mounting my 6-stable file server. There was a LOR in there somewhere, but I couldn't tell if it was one of the "usual" ones, or if it was relevant. As we get closer to the 8-release slushie and start asking people to do serious debugging this issue is going to make that more difficult. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection