On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 09:46:27AM -0800, Brian Buhrow wrote: > Hello. We were seeing this issue with FFS and softdep, no wapbl under > 5.x. Would these patches help that? It looks like not, but I'm a litle > unclear about that.
It should - there should only be one ufs_rename implementation, and wapbl has its own only because the original locking was too broken to wedge wapbl into (semi-)correctly. The private wapbl copy of ufs_rename is going to be going away after this stuff gets fully debugged and committed. You may find it blows up (with the non-wapbl case assertion Manuel posted, or with the v_size thing I posted, or with something else) but it's certainly worth testing if you have a box to test it on. I'd say the patches aren't ready for production use yet though even with yesterday's fixes. -- David A. Holland [email protected]
