On 11 Nov, Don Lewis wrote: > On 11 Nov, Lukas Ertl wrote: >> Sorry, I probably missed an important part: we're creating the FIFOs on >> nullfs mounts - the test script works great on plain UFS mounts, but the >> null layer seems to VREF the vnode once again, so v_usecount is 2, thus it >> is missong the check in fifo_cleanup(). > > Grrr ... At least I didn't break this, our fifo implementation would > have always leaked when used this way. > > Doing the cleanup in fifo_inactive() would have worked better in this > case. I think I figured out a way to make that work properly, but I > really need to test it. > > Is there any particular reason that you are nuking and re-creating the > fifo? If you don't delete the fifo, the same sockets will get used each > time. Now that I've had some time to think about it, if you reuse the same fifo, you'll run into the same problem that caused me to abandon my previous fifo_inactive() version of the cleanup code, which is stale data being left in the fifo after both ends have been closed. You may be stuck with plan B below ... > As a workaround could you create a little mdfs to hold the fifo?Received on Tue Nov 11 2003 - 11:09:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:28 UTC