https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273418
--- Comment #18 from Jason A. Harmening <j...@freebsd.org> --- Shouldn't the asserts in my proposed patch already accomplish what we need here? It may not be truly necessary to add a new flag solely tracking active list membership (vs. CDP_ACTIVE), but it seemed worth doing given that a devnode can be marked inactive while still on cdevp_list. Beyond that, the patch already has: 1) An assert that the node isn't on cdevp_list when devfs_free() is called, which is probably the critical case here due to incorrect (un)referencing. 2) Asserts in the other places that add or remove from cdevp_list, to catch other incorrect behavior e.g. trying add a node to the tail of the list when it's already elsewhere on the list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
