Witness message about lock order reversal on 10 (head)

2013-08-19 Thread Yuri
I got these messages on 10 head, rev.254235, during 'filesystem full' condition. Yuri = log = lock order reversal: 1st 0xff80f7432470 bufwait (bufwait) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_bio.c:3054 2nd 0xfe00075b5600 dirhash (dirhash) @ /usr/src/sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_dirhash.c:284 KDB: stack

Re: /etc/namedb-@ referrs to NIL after crash or typing reboot (not shutdown -r)

2013-08-19 Thread John Baldwin
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 1:42:07 pm Tim Kientzle wrote: On Aug 17, 2013, at 10:35 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:10:49 +0400 Boris Samorodov b...@passap.ru wrote: 17.08.2013 13:36, O. Hartmann пишет: I can reproduceable truncate the link in /etc/ to be NIL by

Re: Witness message about lock order reversal on 10 (head)

2013-08-19 Thread Dan Mack
It might be the same false positive I saw a couple weeks ago ... Davide said to me: | The LOR is a false positive. | See the comment in sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_dirhash.c | Also, switching motherboards is not related to this in any way. You'll | eventually hit that LOR report, unless you disabled

Re: USB no proper work

2013-08-19 Thread Alexander Panyushkin
18.08.2013 01:04, Hans Petter Selasky пишет: On 08/17/13 23:55, Alexander Panyushkin wrote: 17.08.2013 19:41, Alexander Motin пишет: On 17.08.2013 09:22, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On USB device FAT-32 file system. When I removed flash drive, the file system has been unmounted. Hi,

Re: USB no proper work

2013-08-19 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
On 08/19/13 21:54, Alexander Panyushkin wrote: 18.08.2013 01:04, Hans Petter Selasky пишет: On 08/17/13 23:55, Alexander Panyushkin wrote: 17.08.2013 19:41, Alexander Motin пишет: On 17.08.2013 09:22, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On USB device FAT-32 file system. When I removed flash

Question about socket timeouts

2013-08-19 Thread Vitja Makarov
Hi! Recently I was playing with small socket timeouts. setsockopt(2) SO_RCVTIMEO and found a problem with it: if timeout is small enough read(2) may return before timeout is actually expired. I was unable to reproduce this on linux box. I found that kernel uses a timer with 1/HZ precision so it

Re: Question about socket timeouts

2013-08-19 Thread Adrian Chadd
Yes! Please file a PR! -adrian On 19 August 2013 12:33, Vitja Makarov vitja.maka...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Recently I was playing with small socket timeouts. setsockopt(2) SO_RCVTIMEO and found a problem with it: if timeout is small enough read(2) may return before timeout is actually

Re: Question about socket timeouts

2013-08-19 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Adrian Chadd wrote: Yes! Please file a PR! This sorta implies that both are acceptable (although, the Linux behavior seems more desirable). http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=369 On 19 August 2013 12:33, Vitja Makarov vitja.maka...@gmail.com wrote: Hi!