Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:27:31 +0200 From: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> Cc: kan@FreeBSD.org, Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, thierry@herbelot.com Subject: Re: panic: lock (sleep mutex) vnode interlock not locked Message-ID: <7F34BFAD-BE04-4162-9F79-2E04DC46B209@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <50B7B998-A1A3-4AF1-8BE1-DF61E0D1E950@FreeBSD.org> References: <200508101002.j7AA2D0U099849@gw.catspoiler.org> <50B7B998-A1A3-4AF1-8BE1-DF61E0D1E950@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > Hi, > > On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Don Lewis wrote: > > >> What is preventing VI_DOOMED from being set while we're waiting for >> VOP_LOCK()? Contrary to what the VOP_LOCK(9) man page says about >> LK_INTERLOCK, it looks like lockmgr() drops the vnode interlock >> before >> it attempts to grab the vnode lock. >> > > VI_DOOMED is only set by vgonel(), and it requires both the vnode > and the interlock locked. I read your message a bit too fast. I think you are right. We should probably move the check for VI_DOOMED etc, after we've acquired the vnode lock. -- Suleiman Souhlal | ssouhlal@vt.edu The FreeBSD Project | ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7F34BFAD-BE04-4162-9F79-2E04DC46B209>