Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> > I don't understand, then. There should be no other way that an ffs_write
> > call can trap to needing an SMBFS page:
> >
> > #22 0xc03902a8 in calltrap () at {standard input}:99
> > #23 0xc033af01 in ffs_write (ap=0xd66ebbe8) at ../../../ufs/ffs/ffs_vnops.c:810
> > #24 0xc029b74d in vn_write (fp=0xc40341a4, uio=0xd66ebc68,
> > active_cred=0xc4251d00, flags=0, td=0xc13534e0) at vnode_if.h:417
> > #25 0xc0259a75 in dofilewrite (td=0xc13534e0, fp=0xc40341a4, fd=4,
> > buf=0x2805b000, nbyte=0, offset=0, flags=0) at file.h:215
> > #26 0xc0259909 in write (td=0xc13534e0, uap=0xd66ebd10)
> > at ../../../kern/sys_generic.c:329
> > ---
> >
> > You *must* be doing something that causes an SMBFS object to act as
> > backing store for an FFS.
>
> You know better, sure, but nevertheless I'm not doing anything what
> can cause it. Perhaps a bug somewhere.
My guess is in the "?" routines that you didn't backtrace for us;
perhaps what happened was that the stack frame screwed up, and
implicated code that was not a fault.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
