at softdep_process_worklist+0x7f
softdep_flush() at softdep_flush+0x15d
fork_exit() at fork_exit+0x86
fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0xe
--- trap 0, rip = 0, rsp = 0xb1b8ad00, rbp = 0 ---
-
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<[EMA
710 ---
-
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // FreeBSD Project
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any
ocess.
When above sleep(1) killed, this process has another PID than
daemon(8)'s, and request NFS unlock call with sleep(1)'s svid(PID).
Our rpc.lockd(8) refuses this request because of svid unmatch.
Which side should be fixed, daemon(8) and rpc.lockd(8)?
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PRO
.
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // FreeBSD Project
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
transmit4_result(NLM4_GRANTED_RES, &res, getrpcaddr(rqstp));
+ transmit4_result(NLM4_GRANTED_RES, &res,
+ (struct sockaddr *)svc_getrpccaller(rqstp->rq_xprt)->buf);
return (NULL);
}
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
ode.
>*/
> sc->flags &= ~FXP_FLAG_UCODE;
> - CSR_WRITE_4(sc, FXP_CSR_PORT, FXP_PORT_SOFTWARE_RESET);
> + CSR_WRITE_4(sc, FXP_CSR_PORT, FXP_PORT_SELECTIVE_RESET);
> DELAY(50);
>
> /*
--
Jun Kuriyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // IMG SRC, Inc.
