On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 15:35, Michael Conrad Tadpol Tilstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:03:39PM -0700, micah nerren wrote: > > We have used nolock instead of gulm, still on the pool device over the > > HBA, and received a crash. Attached are two traces of the crashes. We > > edited the code sprinkling printk's throughout to get some output. > > > > Using lock_nolock instead of lock_gulm still crashes, but slightly > > differently. See koops-nolock.txt > > er, you might want to double check this run, looking at the oops and > loging, it looks like it is still trying to use gulm. > > the line: > Gulm v6.0.0 (built Aug 5 2004 16:27:11) installed > in the file: koops-nolock.txt > lead me to believe this, along with the lock_gulm sysmbols in the oops. > > i could be imaging things too... Yeah you are right, I had caught that and am attempting a true nolock at the moment.
