From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 29 06:27:07 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 82ED837B401; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C1C9F43F93; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@pcnet.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h4TDR3Nc018314;
	Thu, 29 May 2003 09:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet.com>
To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <023f01c325b8$2cf96d60$812a40c1@PETEX31>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10305290926470.16004-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: malloc(): error: recursive call
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:27:07 -0000

On Thu, 29 May 2003, Petri Helenius wrote:

> > 
> > Note that if you are using my other spinlock patch
> > (from http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/kse/spinlock.diffs),
> > that also solves the problem but in a slightly different
> > way.  That patch forces the library to reference the
> > spinlock functions (the new spinlock implementation needs
> > some initialization), so the table of references doesn't
> > need to be changed (like the patch in the prior email does).
> > 
> Will either one of the patches make it to 5.1-RELEASE, please?

I'll try.

-- 
Dan Eischen