Re: Anyone able to verify the fix for (was Re: panic: vm_object_shadow: source object has OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.)

2000-04-19 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :I'll remove (or change) the assertion later this evening :unless I hear protests to the contrary. : :Alan : Sounds like a plan. When you get it committed I'll bring it up on one of my test boxes and run it through the gauntlet. -Matt

Re: Anyone able to verify the fix for (was Re: panic: vm_object_shadow: source object has OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.)

2000-04-18 Thread Alan Cox
I'll remove (or change) the assertion later this evening unless I hear protests to the contrary. Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Anyone able to verify the fix for (was Re: panic: vm_object_shadow: source object has OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.)

2000-04-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :This patch introduces a new bug. While it does guarantee that :the assertion in vm_object_shadow isn't tripped over, it doesn't :clear the OBJ_ONEMAPPING flag on the newly created shadow object. :(New objects are created with OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.) Consequently, :we'll have two overlapping map

Re: Anyone able to verify the fix for (was Re: panic: vm_object_shadow: source object has OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.)

2000-04-18 Thread Alan Cox
This patch introduces a new bug. While it does guarantee that the assertion in vm_object_shadow isn't tripped over, it doesn't clear the OBJ_ONEMAPPING flag on the newly created shadow object. (New objects are created with OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.) Consequently, we'll have two overlapping mappings to

Anyone able to verify the fix for (was Re: panic: vm_object_shadow: source object has OBJ_ONEMAPPING set.)

2000-04-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
Has Brian or Michael or anyone been able to verify whether my patch below fixes the reported vm_object_shadow panics yet? I'd like to get it committed (or scrapped). -Matt Index: vm_map.c =