Subject: Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held

From: Mark Linimon <linimon@...> · Date: Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 7:02 pm

On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:42:43AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
quoted text> IMO if we're going to ship NTFS support in the base it should actually 
> function, or at minimum not panic the box.

This is a symptom of a general problem, "things that we doubt work very
well".  What's your suggestion on how we can flag these?

The traditional argument is that if we don't ship code in the base, it
will never get tested.  IMHO it would a big change to turn off everything
that isn't 100% solid.

I'm open to suggestions.

mcl
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"


linux-kernel:
Greg Kroah-Hartman	[PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches
Amit K. Arora	[RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()
Laurent Riffard	Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1: WARNING at arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:129
Alan Cox	Re: x86: 4kstacks default
linux-netdev:
Jarek Poplawski	Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock().
Gerrit Renker	[PATCH 34/37] dccp: Auto-load (when supported) CCID plugins for negotiation
Maciej W. Rozycki	Re: [PATCH] PHYLIB: IRQ event workqueue handling fixes
John P Poet	Realtek 8111C transmit timed out
git:

openbsd-misc:

Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held

Online users