Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 06:02:02 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>, tlambert@primenet.com, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: May 17th UP machine 'panic' Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980527055424.18018A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <19980526125955.35385@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > I'll give it a shakeout - presently it is very, very rough. It is > only compiled, not run - and I still haven't done much to make sure > that vput() has proc available from a higher level (even though that > often is easy to arrange). It's probably safer to just use the nearest proc to the vput() in question unless it's obvious. We can migrate to the top incrementally later as part of other changes. > I'm thinking more of whether the value of cnp->cn_proc will be the > correct process to pass down in all cases. As it is, I haven't used > it except where it already was used in the same function. That's a good strategy. cnp->cn_proc is correct in most cases but I can't say all cases. If the vnode was ref'ed and locked in namei() it's correct to use cnp->cn_proc. Regards, Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.980527055424.18018A-100000>