The following reply was made to PR kern/174958; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Keith Sklower <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: kern/174958: [net] [patch] rnh_walktree_from makes unreasonable assumptions Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 17:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Hi, I had many, many exchanges of email with Marko Zec concerning this issue; please keep it open. We're both agreed there is a problem, and we came up with a patch that he's OK with, but we didn't reach full agreement on some other issues which have implications for locking, which have subsequently addressed by somebody else. I would like to come up with a patch for FreeBSD 10 and revive the discussion, but I'm busy for the next couple of weeks. (and also a test harness which demonstrates casses where the distributed code fails, which can be run at user level). Keith > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 19:18:41 +0400 > From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: kern/174958: [net] [patch] rnh_walktree_from makes unreasonable > assumptions > Hello! > Better late than never. > I'm a bit unsure how patch&test case in this PR relates to kern/174959. > Problems described here are the same as in 174959, however it looks like > given patch > addresses some other problem. It does not touch problem function at all, > but introduces a bunch > of new ones not used in test case. > Can you please provide some more details? _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
