> of mh->mount, which is nil.  the code in question
> was a fileserver which was crashing, getting killed
> while concurrent io was being done to the fs.

i believe that.  the code is assuming that because
it found mh in the mount table, mh->mount != nil.
that's only true until it releases the rlock, which it has.
if an unmount happens between the runlock and the
rlock, then mh->mount will be nil here.  it means
that nothing is mounted there anymore.  your fix
looks reasonable.

russ

Reply via email to