From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 28 15:18:14 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C212316A478 for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:18:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AD513C480 for ; Mon, 28 May 2007 15:18:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 78456 invoked from network); 28 May 2007 14:34:34 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 May 2007 14:34:34 -0000 Message-ID: <465AF2BC.7070505@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 17:18:20 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <200705281205.l4SC5vVx078234@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200705281205.l4SC5vVx078234@freefall.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-i386@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/113053: syncache broken in latest FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 15:18:14 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: > Synopsis: syncache broken in latest FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-i386->freebsd-net > Responsible-Changed-By: linimon > Responsible-Changed-When: Mon May 28 12:05:46 UTC 2007 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > This does not sound i386-specific. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=113053 Just to clarify: Syncache is not broken in -current. The user is confused about a recently enabled log message. This is partly my fault as the log message isn't clear enough for a non-expert to classify correctly. I've assumed the PR. -- Andre