Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:18:47 +0100 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10801260918k56c1a73hf28ff154eca0b74c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <479B6303.6000401@FreeBSD.org> 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> <479B6303.6000401@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/1/26, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>: > 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. I'm not sure now, are you referring to some problems introduced by my patches or not? Thanks, 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?3bbf2fe10801260918k56c1a73hf28ff154eca0b74c>