On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 09:44:29PM +0400, Dmitriy Kirhlarov wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:22:26PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > I think it's same problem as in thread "fsck_ufs locked in snaplk". > > > Is this problem fixed in fresh 6.1-PRE? > > > > I think we've reproduced the problem, but it probably won't be fixed > > before the release. Sorry, the bug reports came too late in the > > release cycle. > > Imho, it's bad idea -- create release with so important bug. It's not > coda, unionfs or something else. It's very useful. > I think, postpone release for fix this issue -- more fine.
The release cycle has been in progress for over 3 months, and based on our understanding of the problems there is little chance of a quick fix for this issue even if the decision was made to delay the release further. Let me point out something important, which ties in to Scott's recent email. On February 21 -- that is over 2 months ago -- I sent email to this list containing a fix for the quota deadlocks that were known at the time. I got minimal response from users, but it was uniformly positive. The fix was committed, and the status of the "quota deadlocks" item on the 6.1-RELEASE todo list was changed from "must fix" to "believed fixed, please test". The next I heard about the problem was about a week ago when someone reported another deadlock and several others chimed in with "oh yeah, it still deadlocks for me too". Well, sorry folks, you should have told me in February. Or if you only found out about the problem a week ago, you need to recognize that problems raised at the last minute cannot always be fixed instantly. The best we can do now is provide a patch when the fix is available, and with the agreement of the release engineers it may be possible to commit the fix to the errata/security branch at a later date. In the meantime, the best advice is to avoid snapshots on busy systems (with or without quotas, they both can deadlock). Kris
pgppCFnbJg7Jy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
