Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:26:24 -0500 From: Richard Todd <rmtodd@servalan.servalan.com> To: George Hartzell <hartzell@alerce.com> Cc: Richard Todd <rmtodd@servalan.servalan.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help with filing a [maybe] ZFS/mmap bug. Message-ID: <20130718192624.GA45917@ichotolot.servalan.com> In-Reply-To: <20968.14003.813473.517439@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <20967.760.95825.310085@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <x7vc48sb5e.fsf@ichotolot.servalan.com> <20968.14003.813473.517439@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:40:51AM -0700, George Hartzell wrote: > Removing the mmap support from those two routines seems to avoid the > issue. Aha. > > If so, then the issue is triggered by one or both of those two routines; > > hack them to print out the exact offsets used on each call and use that to > > try and code up a simple C++ test case. > > [...] > > Your test case doesn't use mmap, I assume that you've offered it up as > a hint, not as something that's nearly done. The shell script in > particular seems useful. Um, go look at gen4.cpp again. It uses mmap(). The insert_bytes and delete_bytes functions should work the same way as the (mmap-using path of) the functions of the same name in py-mutagen. > In my case I'd want to find a particular set of file size, offset, and > insertion size that triggers the problem and code up a c/c++ equiv. of > the mmap calls that py-mutagen does. Right? Yeah.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130718192624.GA45917>