Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:26:40 +0000 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Pavel Polyakov <bsd@kobyla.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, daichi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lock violation in unionfs (9.0-STABLE r230270) Message-ID: <CAJ-FndAFMV2iHcMKvMruCP%2BHRzwQuY1Jcd_o6ZEnTCiPV8_8oA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <op.v9l1byf89gyv16@pp> References: <op.v9l1byf89gyv16@pp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/2/13, Pavel Polyakov <bsd@kobyla.org>: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165087 > > Occurs simply trying to use unionfs: > mount -t unionfs -o noatime /usr /mnt > > insmntque: mp-safe fs and non-locked vp: 0xfffffe01d96704f0 is not > exclusive locked but should be > KDB: enter: lock violation Pavel, can you give a spin to this patch?: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch I think that the unlocking is due at that point as the vnode lock can be switch later on. Let me know what you think about it and what the test does. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndAFMV2iHcMKvMruCP%2BHRzwQuY1Jcd_o6ZEnTCiPV8_8oA>