Re: libzpool assert vs libc assert

2009-06-02 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 02/06/2009 17:06 Andriy Gapon said the following: > So I am quite sure that mutex_owned should be defined as follows: > #define mutex_owned(l) pthread_mutex_isowned_np((l)->m_lock) Actually: #define mutex_owned(l) pthread_mutex_isowned_np(&(l)->m_lock) And on dangers of ign

Re: libzpool assert vs libc assert

2009-06-02 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 01/06/2009 19:22 Andriy Gapon said the following: > Henri, > > thank you very much for testing! > It look like the patch did its job. > > P.S. hopefully someone is looking into the cause of the assertion. I think I cracked it. This is where ds->ds_lock.m_owner gets corrupted: (gdb) c Continui

Re: libzpool assert vs libc assert

2009-06-01 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 01/06/2009 19:12 Henri Hennebert said the following: > Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I propose the following patch for this issue. >> It fixes mismatch between __assert extern declaration in zfs code and >> actual >> signature in libc code. >> I also took liberty of dropping __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION

Re: libzpool assert vs libc assert

2009-06-01 Thread Henri Hennebert
Andriy Gapon wrote: on 29/05/2009 15:35 Andriy Gapon said the following: So anyone else feels that this is a bug? on 28/05/2009 16:55 Andriy Gapon said the following: on 28/05/2009 16:26 Henri Hennebert said the following: (gdb) bt #0 0x0008012a6f22 in strlen () from /lib/libc.so.7 #1 0

Re: libzpool assert vs libc assert

2009-06-01 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 29/05/2009 15:35 Andriy Gapon said the following: > So anyone else feels that this is a bug? > > on 28/05/2009 16:55 Andriy Gapon said the following: >> on 28/05/2009 16:26 Henri Hennebert said the following: >>> (gdb) bt >>> #0 0x0008012a6f22 in strlen () from /lib/libc.so.7 >>> #1 0x000