From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Sep 23 17:15:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pike.osd.bsdi.com (pike.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A7437B42C; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foo.osd.bsdi.com (root@foo.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.137]) by pike.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8O0FMi99151; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:15:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@foo.osd.bsdi.com) Received: (from jhb@localhost) by foo.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8O0Dqg19141; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:13:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Organization: BSD, Inc. From: John Baldwin To: Bosko Milekic Subject: Re: mbuf system and SMPng Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 23-Sep-00 Bosko Milekic wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, John Baldwin wrote: > >> Hmm, do we want to add a KASSERT() to msleep() then to verify >> that the mutex isn't recursed when we release it? > > Yes... This is very important for the work that I'm doing because, > although it would be out of the ordinary, I don't want to trip over some > obfuscated way a protocol drain routine may end up in one of the mbuf > "wait" routines (theoretically, this isn't possible, but let's just be > 101% sure). > Are you going to do it, or shall I? I'm testing to make sure it builds ok, and I'll commit it once it does. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.cslab.vt.edu/~jobaldwi/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message