[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process
> > pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case?
>
> One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when
> follow
Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process
> pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case?
One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when
following symbolic links. namei() calls VOP_R
On 18 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since proc can be NULL and most of the other code in nfs_socket
> handles it I do think this actually is the right thing to do.
> Comments?
I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process
pointer to be NULL in the first pl
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Grog had a similar panic on IRC the other day:
>
> >#7 0xc021c857 in nfs_msg (p=0x0, server=0xc0bf0cf2 "slave:/usr/home",
> > msg=0xc02ba748 "not responding") at
>
> The 'p' parameter is a process that is supposed to be making the request, and
> t
On 18-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote:
> I built -current world and kernel around 3am PST sunday morning with up
> to date sources. Later that same day I added Poul-Henning's console
> logging patch. Just a few minutes ago I had a lockup and panic that
> thankfully produced a kernel core to work w
I built -current world and kernel around 3am PST sunday morning with up
to date sources. Later that same day I added Poul-Henning's console
logging patch. Just a few minutes ago I had a lockup and panic that
thankfully produced a kernel core to work with. It looks like this is
not related
