On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:14:40AM -0400, Juan Mojica wrote:
Glad I could help.
- Peter
>I'm a little late to get back to the email thread, but this is great to
>hear. Changes look good (assuming the goto drop is changed
>dropunlock). Thanks guys.
>
>On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:4
I'm a little late to get back to the email thread, but this is great to
hear. Changes look good (assuming the goto drop is changed dropunlock).
Thanks guys.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Peter Holm wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > On 09.04.2013 10
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 09.04.2013 10:16, Peter Holm wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >> On 05.04.2013 13:09, Matt Miller wrote:
> >>> Hey Rick,
> >>>
> >>> I believe Juan and I have root caused this crash re
On 09.04.2013 10:16, Peter Holm wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 05.04.2013 13:09, Matt Miller wrote:
Hey Rick,
I believe Juan and I have root caused this crash recently. The t_state =
0x1, TCPS_LISTEN, in the link provided at the time of the assertio
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 05.04.2013 13:09, Matt Miller wrote:
> > Hey Rick,
> >
> > I believe Juan and I have root caused this crash recently. The t_state =
> > 0x1, TCPS_LISTEN, in the link provided at the time of the assertion.
> >
> > In tcp_input(),
Hey Andre,
Looks OK to me.
Note that tcps_rcvdwhileclosing is a new stat Juan added (I had omitted the
rest of that diff b/c adding a new stat wasn't that interesting to the
discussion). If you want that stat added, we can prepare a patch with the
rest of the changes (or, I'm sure you know alrea
On 05.04.2013 13:09, Matt Miller wrote:
Hey Rick,
I believe Juan and I have root caused this crash recently. The t_state =
0x1, TCPS_LISTEN, in the link provided at the time of the assertion.
In tcp_input(), if we're in TCPS_LISTEN, SO_ACCEPTCONN should be set on the
socket and we should never
Juan Mojica wrote:
> Agree with Matt.
>
> Whenever there is an UNLOCK/LOCK like is present in soclose(), there
> is a window to allow something through. Unsetting SO_ACCEPTCONN was
> put in place because the LOCK/UNLOCK in soclose let a new socket to be
> added to the so_incomp list causing a dif
Agree with Matt.
Whenever there is an UNLOCK/LOCK like is present in soclose(), there is a
window to allow something through. Unsetting SO_ACCEPTCONN was put in
place because the LOCK/UNLOCK in soclose let a new socket to be added to
the so_incomp list causing a different ASSERT to be hit - and m
Hey Rick,
I believe Juan and I have root caused this crash recently. The t_state =
0x1, TCPS_LISTEN, in the link provided at the time of the assertion.
In tcp_input(), if we're in TCPS_LISTEN, SO_ACCEPTCONN should be set on the
socket and we should never enter tcp_do_segment() for this state. I
On 05.04.2013 00:33, Rick Macklem wrote:
Hi,
When pho@ was doing some NFS testing, he got the
following crash, which I can't figure out. (As far
as I can see, INP_WLOCK() is always held when
tp->t_state = TCPS_CLOSED and it is held from before
the test for TCPS_CLOSED in tcp_input() up until
the
Hi,
When pho@ was doing some NFS testing, he got the
following crash, which I can't figure out. (As far
as I can see, INP_WLOCK() is always held when
tp->t_state = TCPS_CLOSED and it is held from before
the test for TCPS_CLOSED in tcp_input() up until
the tcp_do_segment() call. As such, I don't se
12 matches
Mail list logo
