Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> maybe clear fs->fs_snapinum[snaploc] in that case ?
I am about to commit the patch below, but the problem
is: I cannot test it, since I cleaned up the obsolete snapshot
storage backend file from the machine I had the initial
problem with.
Index: sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c,v
retrieving revision 1.149
diff -U4 -r1.149 ffs_snapshot.c
--- sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c 1 Jun 2017 02:45:15 -0000 1.149
+++ sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c 13 Sep 2018 06:03:32 -0000
@@ -1734,8 +1734,9 @@
*/
void
ffs_snapshot_mount(struct mount *mp)
{
+#ifndef FFS_NO_SNAPSHOT
struct vnode *devvp = VFSTOUFS(mp)->um_devvp;
struct fs *fs = VFSTOUFS(mp)->um_fs;
struct lwp *l = curlwp;
struct vnode *vp;
@@ -1823,14 +1824,16 @@
/*
* Link it onto the active snapshot list.
*/
- if (is_active_snapshot(si, ip))
- panic("ffs_snapshot_mount: %"PRIu64" already on list",
+ if (is_active_snapshot(si, ip)) {
+ printf("ffs_snapshot_mount: %"PRIu64" already on list",
ip->i_number);
- else
+ fs->fs_snapinum[snaploc] = 0;
+ } else {
TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&si->si_snapshots, ip, i_nextsnap);
- vp->v_vflag |= VV_SYSTEM;
+ vp->v_vflag |= VV_SYSTEM;
+ }
VOP_UNLOCK(vp);
}
/*
* No usable snapshots found.
@@ -1847,8 +1850,9 @@
si->si_snapblklist = xp->i_snapblklist;
fscow_establish(mp, ffs_copyonwrite, devvp);
si->si_gen++;
mutex_exit(&si->si_lock);
+#endif /* FFS_NO_SNAPSHOT */
}
/*
* Disassociate snapshot files when unmounting.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
