Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:21:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> To: assar@FreeBSD.ORG 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: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012172119180.430-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <5lpuiqa3r6.fsf@assaris.sics.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Dec 2000 assar@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > Since proc can be NULL and most of the other code in nfs_socket > handles it I do think this actually is the right thing to do. > Comments? 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? And if so, why is nfs_msg() being called with this pointer being passed in in the first place? > /assar > [...] Regards, Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012172119180.430-100000>