On Tuesday, 4 April 2000 at 15:33:43 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <v04220803b50f8d254208@[195.238.1.121]>, Brad Knowles writes:
>> At 8:23 AM +0200 2000/4/4, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
>>
>>> Like I said in another mail, this is CURRENT, things are
>>> expected to break. You want stability of API's, go 3-STABLE. You want
>>> a somewhat stable environment, go 4-STABLE. 5 is bleeding edge, have
>>> your bandages ready.
>>
>> Like I said in a previous message, Poul broke vinum (among other
>> things) under 4.0-STABLE, and this needs to be fixed ASAP. If Poul
>> had kept his changes unique to -CURRENT, then 4.0-STABLE wouldn't
>> have been affected. But he didn't, and it was.
>
> Brad,
>
> You are confused.
>
> I have not made one single commit to 4.0-STABLE which even comes
> close to vinum.
>
> The problem in vinum/releng4 is the problem greg has been blaming
> on CAM since at least FreeBSDcon and indications seems to be that
> it is actually a malloc/free gottcha in vinum.
No, this is not correct. The problem you're talking about I blamed
elsewhere, not specifically CAM. To quote from
http://www.lemis.com/vinum/bugs.html:
Technical explanation: A buffer header gets corrupted between the
time the top half of the driver issues the request to the disk
driver, and when the I/O completes. Currently, the evidence is
pointing towards the disk driver, but the corruption is of such an
unusual nature that it's difficult to guess what's going on.
This bug went away without me making any change to Vinum, so I feel
that my opinion is correct. This isn't the bug which Søren has been
seeing, and indeed your last lot of commits made it impossible for the
bug to ever show up again in this form (since there is no longer a
B_CALL in the buffer header).
Greg
--
Linuxcare - BSD support for the revolution.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
