From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 30 20:13:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D09F16A4CE; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:13:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ylpvm43.prodigy.net (ylpvm43-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AFC43D54; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:13:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.0.34] (adsl-67-119-74-222.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [67.119.74.222])iAUKDpp8030633; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:13:51 -0500 Message-ID: <41ACD47A.3020002@root.org> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:13:46 -0800 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040901) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <200411301748.iAUHmAiK010161@repoman.freebsd.org> <200411301341.01331.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200411301341.01331.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/acpica acpi_pci_link.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:13:48 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 30 November 2004 12:48 pm, Nate Lawson wrote: > >>njl 2004-11-30 17:48:10 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> sys/dev/acpica acpi_pci_link.c >> Log: >> Don't bother locking in attach(). At boot time, we're single-threaded >> anyway and for some reason, witness seems confused about what's already >> locked and triggers a false panic. > > > Witness doesn't get confused, there's some other bug. I'm not sure that all > device attachments are always single-threaded though. Imagine hotplugging a > docking station, that's going to add a new PCI bus. It probably won't have > an internal programming router (probably not physically possible), but I > don't think we should assume for now that attach is only a boot-time > scenario. Some other guy had a problem before that was similar and Warner seemed to think that the xlock was being confused with some other lock since there was no way the lock could have already been held elsewhere. I'm happy to let you troubleshoot this and sorry for any interference. -Nate