From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Dec 2 15:15:55 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA12740 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:15:55 -0800 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA12718 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:15:36 -0800 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA06564; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:13:46 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199512022313.QAA06564@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Help!!!! To: peter@haywire.dialix.com (Peter Wemm) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 16:13:46 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <49pmnr$rlf$1@haywire.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at Dec 2, 95 10:10:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1746 Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > >I don't think you can do anything for now. Apparently some patches for > >async mounts adversely affected non-async mounts. > > "Apparently" is a pretty ambiguous word. Does this mean you heard > somebody ask if it was the async changes? Have you considered the > possibility that it was one of the other changes that went in at about > the same time that was breaking the people that were seeing the > problem? For instance, I've never had the problem on ISA machines, > and I've not heard anybody with problems on a PCI machine.. Just by > coincidence, the people that described their hardware were running > EISA and 284X controllers. Guess what? There was a major EISA rewrite > about the same time as John committed his benign Async changes.... I have a PCI machine, and it has had the problems. I have an EISA machine and it has not. Backing the code back to before the changes went in fixes the problem. Yes, I realize this is circumstantial. That's why I said "apparently". It is intentionally ambiguous. > Please check before implying blame for unrelated problems on > somebody's changes that you appear to not agree with in principle... I was merely noting an apparent causal relationship that has been noted on -current and -hackers by others before I even updated the code on my machine and saw the problem. Backing the code back to before the changes made at and around the time of the async changes fixes the problem. Take that for what it is worth (a lot if you happen to have a system with the problem and only care that it go away, and don't care about the real cause). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.