"Steven G. Kargl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian F. Feldman said:
> > "Steven G. Kargl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The source tree was retrieved by cvsup
> > > at 21:47 (PST) on Oct 4.
> > >
> > > This is a non-GEOM and non-acpi kernel.
> > >
> > > I have the core and kernel.debug, so any
> > > further postmortem is possible.
> >
> > I think the problem is that in src/sys/ufs/ffs/
> > ffs_snapshot.c:ffs_snapshot(),
> > as the mnt vnode list is traversed none of the vnodes ("xvp") would actually GET
> > VI_LOCK()ed in the first place, and so the LK_INTERLOCK is bogus in the
> > vn_lock() call. Kirk would know for sure what to do about this...
> >
>
> I came to the same conclusion after I sent the original email.
>
> What I don't understand is how I ended up in ffs_snapshot(),
> because I don't have a snapshot of /var. I tried snapshots
> when Kirk first introduced the feature, but I removed all
> of the snapshots a long time ago. Is there a flag in the
> superblock that I need to clear?
>
> One other point, the machine was doing a background fsck
> on /var. Does a background fsck go through ffs_snapshot()?
Exactly: background fsck takes a snapshot to work on. I think
background_fsck="NO" is a good workaround at the moment for this.
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \
Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
