From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:10:22 -0500
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za, 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <8d7d663d856af3e813f65f690ff37904@plug.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20101118104836.GB3464@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20101118081130.GA3464@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
	<e5cc4388ae566a22a7dfcde72f7a78e8@gmx.de>
	<20101118104836.GB3464@fangle.proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] That deadlock, again
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84f8a8dc-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 	if(up != nil && up->nlocks.ref)
> 		print("qlock: %#p: nlocks %lud\n", getcallerpc(&q), up->nlocks.ref);
>
> will no longer need the up != nil test.

that's just wrong.  if the kernel is qlocking without
a up, there's a bug.  stack dumps are your friend.

but i have a feeling that there is a mistake in your
modification to qlock.  you didn't have this panic
before you modified qlock.

- erik