Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 3 May 2006 17:36:57 +0400 (MSD)
From:      Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>
To:        Tor Egge <tegge@freebsd.org>
Cc:        cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ffs ffs_snapshot.c ffs_vnops.c
Message-ID:  <20060503172526.H98950@woozle.rinet.ru>
In-Reply-To: <200605022352.k42Nqi1s095377@repoman.freebsd.org>
References:  <200605022352.k42Nqi1s095377@repoman.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear Tor,

On Tue, 2 May 2006, Tor Egge wrote:

TE>   Modified files:
TE>     sys/ufs/ffs          ffs_snapshot.c ffs_vnops.c 
TE>   Log:
TE>   Close a race when VOP_LOCK() on a snapshot file is attempted at the
TE>   same time as it is changed back into a normal file.  The locker would
TE>   get the shared "snaplk" lock which would no longer be the correct lock
TE>   for the vnode.

Any chance this (and subsequent) change(s) would fix snaplk errors reported by 
me? How can I help testing (patch applied cleanly, but I hesitate to test it 
blindly ;)

Thanks!

Sincerely,
D.Marck                                     [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060503172526.H98950>