From owner-freebsd-fs Tue May 26 14:03:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA20083 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20062 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.8/CET-v2.2) with SMTP id VAA18054; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:02:02 GMT Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 06:02:02 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Eivind Eklund cc: "John S. Dyson" , tlambert@primenet.com, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: May 17th UP machine 'panic' In-Reply-To: <19980526125955.35385@follo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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