On Jul 30, 2009, at 15:14, Andriy Gapon wrote: > Thomas, > > I wasn't clear - please make sure that you have original > zfs_inactive (without the > changes that Pawel proposed) with the only change zfs_znode_free -> > vrecycle. > I.e.: > if (zp->z_dbuf == NULL) { > /* > * The fs has been unmounted, or we did a > * suspend/resume and this file no longer exists. > */ > mutex_enter(&zp->z_lock); > VI_LOCK(vp); > vp->v_count = 0; /* count arrives as 1 */ > mutex_exit(&zp->z_lock); > rw_exit(&zfsvfs->z_teardown_inactive_lock); > vrecycle(vp, curthread); > return; > } > > I believe that the latest panic is a direct result of ZTOV(zp) = > NULL line > introduced in zfs_vnops.c.2.patch. > > reclaim function should stay patched with Pawel's patch. Hey, it works!!! :) For the first time ever, my now mislabeled "clone_crash.sh" doesn't panic! A quick test of my ordinary, actually-used backup script also worked fine! For the record, here's the diff I got: http://exscape.org/temp/zfs_vnops.c.patch Thanks a lot! Hope to see this tested further (I'll do some more testing for sure) so that we can consider it a stable change. Regards, ThomasReceived on Thu Jul 30 2009 - 11:32:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:52 UTC