Date:Sun, 12 Aug 2018 08:05:26 +
From:Emmanuel Dreyfus
Message-ID: <20180812080526.gf17...@homeworld.netbsd.org>
| Why would test then lock?
Because it avoids the overheads of acquiring a lock for no
particularly good purpose, only to immediately release it
Date:Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:25:26 +
From:Emmanuel Dreyfus
Message-ID: <20180812132526.gh17...@homeworld.netbsd.org>
| I was wondering about the FSS_ACTIVE test.
It is just one bit, either it is set, or it is not SInce the code
is already referencing sc->
> Are you sure it _only_ happens in the do/while and _never_ in the
> preceding if?
No, I'm not sure.
> In any case, it's just a diagnostic, not a protocol for a robust
> software system to rely on. If it doesn't work, can try another one.
OK, I hit my new panic in soput(). The call chain is
> The unp_gc thread assumes that holding a reference to the associated
> struct file, by incrementing f_count, prevents the socket from being
> freed. Certainly that prevents closef from calling fo_close, which
> for a socket is soo_close, which calls soclose, which calls sofree,
> which calls
> On 12. Aug 2018, at 03:58, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:33:04AM +0200, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>> When fssconfig "hangs" the dump is creating a snapshot. Creating
>> a snapshot (and suspending a file system) is serialized. Allowing
>> more than one file system
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:52:42AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> I doubt that your new proposed ioctl() is a very good
> interface
Indeed, the following change is enough to find a free fss without a
hang, and it does not introduce a new ioctl. It is quite close to
your proposal, except I lock
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 09:55:27AM +0200, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> > You mean you cannot at the same tme snapshot /mount0 on fss0 and
> > /mount1 on fss1?
>
> Yes, you have to create the snapshot on /mount0 and once it has been
> created you create the snapshot on /mount1.
Where is that
> On 12. Aug 2018, at 10:07, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 09:55:27AM +0200, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>>> You mean you cannot at the same tme snapshot /mount0 on fss0 and
>>> /mount1 on fss1?
>>
>> Yes, you have to create the snapshot on /mount0 and once it has been
>>
