Sorry it took so long; see below.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0000000800bcb89c in pthread_testcancel () from /lib/
libpthread.so.2
#1 0x0000000800bb95c3 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#2 0x0000000800bbb0e2 in sigaction () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#3 0x0000000800bb4db6 in pthread_kill () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#4 0x0000000800bb4633 in raise () from /lib/libpthread.so.2
#5 0x0000000800fce63d in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6
#6 0x000000000043539e in xassert ()
#7 0x0000000000428652 in clientCacheHit ()
#8 0x0000000000422d19 in storeClientCopyHeadersCB ()
#9 0x000000000048c7e6 in storeClientCallback ()
#10 0x000000000048d0a3 in storeClientReadBody ()
#11 0x00000000004a4c56 in storeAufsReadDone ()
#12 0x00000000004a7272 in aioCheckCallbacks ()
#13 0x00000000004900f3 in storeDirCallback ()
#14 0x000000000043439a in comm_select ()
#15 0x0000000000467ac9 in main ()
Need anything more specific?
Cheers,
On 08/07/2008, at 1:44 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tis, 2008-07-08 at 13:30 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Seen again.
>
>>> assertion failed: store_client.c:172: "!EBIT_TEST(e->flags,
>>> ENTRY_ABORTED)"
>>>
>> Perhaps this?
>>
>> http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.7/changesets/12220.patch
>
> Maybe. Quite likely related. Most likely there is some store client
> forgetting to check for abort. But yes, that patch males
> ENTRY_ABORTED a
> bit more likely condition than before.
>
> Should be very easy to fix if you could get a stack trace of the
> failure.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
-- Mark Nottingham mnot_at_yahoo-inc.comReceived on Sun Jul 20 2008 - 04:24:11 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jul 21 2008 - 12:00:07 MDT