From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 26 16:42:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E062416A418 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:42:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F9B413C469 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:42:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12209 invoked by uid 399); 26 Jan 2008 16:42:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2008 16:42:46 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <479B6303.6000401@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:42:43 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yar Tikhiy References: <790a9fff0801150552l542a4238ofc12efe5fdb45fc2@mail.gmail.com> <20080115143924.GB57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20080124122808.GA15600@freefall.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10801240518i6e18b2f5w84de652d4170c95b@mail.gmail.com> <20080124145811.GB78114@comp.chem.msu.su> <3bbf2fe10801240707o72b927cg74dbf9b7bbcd88fc@mail.gmail.com> <20080125075551.GB21633@comp.chem.msu.su> <3bbf2fe10801250000k5852c2f2j5d1897c900096818@mail.gmail.com> <20080126142901.GD49535@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20080126142901.GD49535@comp.chem.msu.su> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Attilio Rao , Kostik Belousov , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:42:47 -0000 Yar Tikhiy wrote: > No doubt. :-) But the urgency of this problem appears much lower > than that I estimated in the first place--fortunately. Broken UFS > would be a nightmare. IMO if we're going to ship NTFS support in the base it should actually function, or at minimum not panic the box. As I reported earlier, I can panic my -current system with 100% reliability with fairly light access to an NTFS volume, which I consider to be a fairly large problem, at least for my personal usage pattern. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection