From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 17 18:21: 5 2000 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 17 18:21:03 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from field.videotron.net (field.videotron.net [205.151.222.108]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4A737B402; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 18:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from modemcable213.3-201-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.201.3.213]) by field.videotron.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.12.14.10.29.p8) with ESMTP id <0G5Q00L0CRUWYX@field.videotron.net>; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:20:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:21:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bosko Milekic Subject: Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related In-reply-to: <5lpuiqa3r6.fsf@assaris.sics.se> To: assar@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: John Baldwin , Doug Barton , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 18 Dec 2000 assar@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > Since proc can be NULL and most of the other code in nfs_socket > handles it I do think this actually is the right thing to do. > Comments? I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case? And if so, why is nfs_msg() being called with this pointer being passed in in the first place? > /assar > [...] Regards, Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message