[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fs tests failing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 06:04:47PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On 01.09.2012 17:42, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> >>Yes. And with my older (well, prehistoric ;) versions of the
> >>drivers, "only" 20 or so of the tests resulted in a kernel panic
> >>while the rest passed. So I'm hoping someone with more recent vfs
> >>familiarity than myself can tell of the top of their head why a
> >>namei on zfs results in this:
> >>panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "VOP_ISLOCKED(*newsearchdir_ret)
> >>== LK_EXCLUSIVE" failed
> >zfs_netbsd_lock(void *v)
> > struct vop_lock_args *ap = v;
> > return 0;
> >our port of ZFS doesn't obey the BSD locking rules. ZFS doesn't need
> >the BSD vnode lock for internal consistency since it does its own locking
> >internally, but the above check and possibly others have more recently
> >been added to ensure that file systems do the correct locking for the
> >fs-independent logic that relies on the BSD vnode lock.
> Ah, ic, but islocked() comes from genfs. Given the current
> situation, it is more sensible to make VOP_ISLOCKED() return
> LK_EXCLUSIVE unconditionally for ZFS and see if that gets DIAGNOSTIC
> builds a bit further.
no, that's completely wrong. ZFS's VOP_LOCK() currently doesn't actually
lock anything, so having its VOP_ISLOCKED() say that it did is just crazy.
all that does is defeat the assertions which are correctly pointing out
that ZFS has a bug.
if you want to try to improve the situation, change all of the ZFS VOP_*LOCK*
to use the genfs ones. I don't know whether or not that will be sufficient,
but it will at least be a step in the right direction.
Main Index |
Thread Index |