From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Thu Mar 23 06:25:17 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF0CD19BBB for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:25:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gergely.czuczy@harmless.hu) Received: from marvin.harmless.hu (marvin.harmless.hu [195.56.55.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3E5D1145; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:25:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gergely.czuczy@harmless.hu) Received: from 94-21-205-135.pool.digikabel.hu ([94.21.205.135] helo=[10.219.16.1]) by marvin.harmless.hu with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.88 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cqwBN-000AO3-5L; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:25:13 +0000 Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification To: Rick Macklem , Konstantin Belousov References: <5ac94b9a-7ced-9eff-d746-7dddaaeca516@harmless.hu> <1489340839.40576.82.camel@freebsd.org> <20170317083605.GQ16105@kib.kiev.ua> <20170317141917.GS16105@kib.kiev.ua> <20170318032150.GW16105@kib.kiev.ua> <4642046a-08e6-35af-c76e-c5e306f01e62@harmless.hu> Cc: Dimitry Andric , Ian Lepore , FreeBSD Current From: Gergely Czuczy Message-ID: <050751d5-8c4d-b257-7c83-3a9bfb38a86d@harmless.hu> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 07:25:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:25:17 -0000 On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote: > Gergely Czuczy wrote: > [stuff snipped] >> Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing >> it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your >> analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't >> think would mean it's solved, since that would only mean, the codepath >> for my specific usecase works. There might be other things there as >> well, what I don't hit. > I hope by vehemently, you didn't find my comments as nasty. If they did > come out that way, it was not what I intended and I apologize. > >> Let me know which patch should I test, and I will see to it in the next >> couple of days, when I get the time to do it. > I've attached it here again and, yes, I would agree that the results you get > from testing are just another data point and not definitive. > (I'd say this statement is true of all testing of nontrivial code.) > > Thanks in advance for any testing you can do, rick > So, I've copied the patched kernel over, and apparently it's working properly. I'm not getting the error anymore. So far I've only did a quick test, should I do something more extensive, like build a couple of ports or something over NFS?