Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:13:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, mjacob@feral.com Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902230012080.82049-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <199902221425.JAA17234@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote: > > Its certainly better than panicing but I'm still not happy about the > > recursion check (which is really just a reentrancy check since no > > recursion is actually happening). > > > > -- > > Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com > > Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 > > > I agree. A per-process recursion count is the way to go. My only worry is that its not clear from the comment exactly what kind of deadlock is being fixed here. If it is a deadlock which could happen for simple reentrancy, then the code should stay as it is. If not, then a different check should be used. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9902230012080.82049-100000>