From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 2 20:14:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DF516A418 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 20:14:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EEB43D46 for ; Tue, 2 May 2006 20:14:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([69.15.205.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k42KEKqe041470; Tue, 2 May 2006 14:14:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4457BD95.9080708@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 14:14:13 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Jakubik References: <20060502171853.GG753@dimma.mow.oilspace.com> <20060502172225.GA90840@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060502174429.GH753@dimma.mow.oilspace.com> <44579EE1.6010300@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <44579EE1.6010300@rogers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 20:14:31 -0000 Mike Jakubik wrote: > Dmitriy Kirhlarov wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:22:26PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> >> >>>> I think it's same problem as in thread "fsck_ufs locked in snaplk". >>>> Is this problem fixed in fresh 6.1-PRE? >>>> >>> >>> I think we've reproduced the problem, but it probably won't be fixed >>> before the release. Sorry, the bug reports came too late in the >>> release cycle. >>> >> >> >> Imho, it's bad idea -- create release with so important bug. It's not >> coda, unionfs or something else. It's very useful. >> I think, postpone release for fix this issue -- more fine. >> > > > Ditto, same thing with the recent nve fixes. Why release known broken > code when there are tested patches available? Whats the worst that will > happen? It wont work? Thats already the case... > Please go back and re-read my email to this list from 14 hours ago. Scott