On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:53:53 +0600
Boris Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, this seems to be correct and necessary addition. At first sight,
> the later code shouldn't blow because of that. BTW, buildworld -jN on top of
> the null mount together with another buildword -jN on the under
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 04:16:10PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 23 Nov, I wrote:
> > I was trying to figure out why the VOP_UNLOCK() call in null_lookup()
> > was violating a vnode locking assertion, so I tossed a bunch of
> > ASSERT_VOP_LOCKED() calls into null_lookup(). I found something I don't
On 23 Nov, I wrote:
> I was trying to figure out why the VOP_UNLOCK() call in null_lookup()
> was violating a vnode locking assertion, so I tossed a bunch of
> ASSERT_VOP_LOCKED() calls into null_lookup(). I found something I don't
> understand ...
>
> ASSERT_VOP_LOCKED(dvp, "null_lookup
I was trying to figure out why the VOP_UNLOCK() call in null_lookup()
was violating a vnode locking assertion, so I tossed a bunch of
ASSERT_VOP_LOCKED() calls into null_lookup(). I found something I don't
understand ...
ASSERT_VOP_LOCKED(dvp, "null_lookup 1");
if ((flags & ISLAST
