On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Kara Chapman wrote:
> Thanks for your help -- that seems to have fixed the problem. You
> mentioned that it was only a temporary fix, so what do you suggest doing
> now? Is this a bug that I should report?
FYI, the error below is probably not causing actual problems, but we
should work to track don the source of the error. If possible, could you
try running with the attached patch to uipc_syscalls.c and see if you get
kernel printf output associated with the error? What I'd like to do is
figure out what the particular source of the EINVAL is, since there are
several possible sources.
Thanks!
Robert N M Watson
Index: uipc_syscalls.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c,v
retrieving revision 1.200.2.3
diff -u -r1.200.2.3 uipc_syscalls.c
--- uipc_syscalls.c 31 Jan 2005 23:26:18 -0000 1.200.2.3
+++ uipc_syscalls.c 17 Feb 2005 12:14:55 -0000
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@
error = head->so_error;
head->so_error = 0;
ACCEPT_UNLOCK();
+ printf("accept: head->so_error %d\n", error);
goto noconnection;
}
so = TAILQ_FIRST(&head->so_comp);
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
