Date: 18 Dec 2000 03:25:00 +0100 From: assar@FreeBSD.ORG To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Panic with fairly up to date -current, seems NFS related Message-ID: <5ly9xe8o03.fsf@assaris.sics.se> In-Reply-To: Bosko Milekic's message of "Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:21:44 -0500 (EST)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012172119180.430-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> writes: > 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? One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when following symbolic links. namei() calls VOP_READLINK with proc == NULL. > And if so, why is nfs_msg() being called with this pointer being > passed in in the first place? Because the code doesn't check? I thought it was easier to have the check in nfs_msg, but it's only called in two places so doing the check there should also work. /assar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5ly9xe8o03.fsf>