Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:42:43 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held Message-ID: <479B6303.6000401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080126142901.GD49535@comp.chem.msu.su> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?479B6303.6000401>