On 26-May-01 Dima Dorfman wrote:
> Is there a reason vm_pager_allocate acquires vm_mtx itself if
> necessary but vm_pager_deallocate does not? At the moment, detaching
> an md(4) disk will panic the system with a failed mtx_assert in
> vm_pager_deallocate. This can be fixed one of two ways:
> v
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010525 22:22] wrote:
> > Is there a reason vm_pager_allocate acquires vm_mtx itself if
> > necessary but vm_pager_deallocate does not? At the moment, detaching
> > an md(4) disk will panic the system with a failed mtx_assert in
> > vm_
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dima Dorfman write
s:
>Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010525 22:22] wrote:
>> > Is there a reason vm_pager_allocate acquires vm_mtx itself if
>> > necessary but vm_pager_deallocate does not? At the moment, detach
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010525 22:22] wrote:
> > Is there a reason vm_pager_allocate acquires vm_mtx itself if
> > necessary but vm_pager_deallocate does not? At the moment, detaching
> > an md(4) disk will panic the system with a failed
* Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010525 22:22] wrote:
> Is there a reason vm_pager_allocate acquires vm_mtx itself if
> necessary but vm_pager_deallocate does not? At the moment, detaching
> an md(4) disk will panic the system with a failed mtx_assert in
> vm_pager_deallocate. This can be fix
