Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:43:54 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r187894 - head/sys/ufs/ffs Message-ID: <200901291343.55485.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20090129181523.GA2471@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <200901291647.n0TGlFHZ058776@svn.freebsd.org> <200901291209.14313.jhb@freebsd.org> <20090129181523.GA2471@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 29 January 2009 1:15:23 pm Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:09:13PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Thursday 29 January 2009 11:47:15 am Edward Tomasz Napierala wrote: > > > Author: trasz > > > Date: Thu Jan 29 16:47:15 2009 > > > New Revision: 187894 > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/187894 > > > > > > Log: > > > Make sure the cdev doesn't go away while the filesystem is still mounted. > > > Otherwise dev2udev() could return garbage. > > > > > > Reviewed by: kib > > > Approved by: rwatson (mentor) > > > Sponsored by: FreeBSD Foundation > > > > Is this applicable to all filesystems? I'm curious why the VREF() on the > > vnode associated with the cdev entry (um_devvp) is not sufficient to prevent > > this? I would have thought that the vnode would have held a reference on the > > cdev. > > The point of this commit is that devvp vnode may be reclaimed. So do all filesystems need this change then? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901291343.55485.jhb>