From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 7 10:24:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E390715328 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:24:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com) Received: (from luoqi@localhost) by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25202; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:24:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from luoqi) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:24:06 -0500 (EST) From: Luoqi Chen Message-Id: <199912071824.NAA25202@lor.watermarkgroup.com> To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk Subject: Re: mount(2) broken? Cc: brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jazepeda@pacbell.net, vallo@matti.ee Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >I'd like to add something about the last buffer wouldn't sync. This occurs > >when a shutdown syscall is issued when the syncer process is asleep waiting > >for a buffer write to complete. The write will never complete, because the > >syncer won't be given a chance to run again, and the buffer will stay marked > >as busy and become the buffer that wouldn't sync. I haven't thought about > >a clean way of handling this situation, maybe some of you out there have > >better ideas... > > I always thought it would make sense to have the syncer perform the shutdown > and cleanup since it had code to write buffers with anyway... > This sounds like a good idea, and should be easy to implement. I'll work on it tonight. > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member > phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." > FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! > -lq To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message