On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > Scott Long wrote: > > Bryan Liesner wrote: > > It's very hard to imagine Jeff's patches causing a problem at the point > > that the PR mentions. Have you confirmed the problem in a kernel that > > was build in a totally clean environment? > > The changed code is not protecting a traversal of a proc > struct member with a proc lock in two places. What's hard > to imagine? >
This is no longer the case with the latest revision. Apparently the panics in cam continue even after the proc lock issues were fixed. > Even if it's weren't necessary to protect that FOREACH loop > (it's necessary; but even if it weren't...), locking the > proc could easily serialize a number of operations through > that or other code which could save it from interference. > > -- Terry > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
