From owner-svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 13 14:27:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748091065701; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:27:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477178FC19; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB86EB988; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:27:55 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: attilio@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:12:38 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p17; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201207301350.q6UDobCI099069@svn.freebsd.org> <201209121511.42296.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201209130912.39029.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Konstantin Belousov , Davide Italiano , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238907 - projects/calloutng/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the src " projects" tree" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:27:56 -0000 On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:07:11 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday, September 10, 2012 9:11:22 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > >> Speaking of which, I think it is time for curthread != NULL checks in > >> the locking primitives to go, or there is a good reason I really don't > >> understand to keep them? > > > > They can probably be axed. > > What do you think about this? > Please note that I would also axe the check in printtrap() on several > arches, but maybe there is a valid reason to keep it I'm not thinking > right now, so I left it out in this patch. There can be a window where curthread is NULL during early boot (e.g. if you got a trap / fault during initi386() or the equivalent). I think the patch is fine. -- John Baldwin