Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:19:48 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c vfs_subr.c Message-ID: <200407190919.48876.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040715212836.GT95729@elvis.mu.org> References: <20040715050225.GA87532@freefall.freebsd.org> <200407151415.03555.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20040715212836.GT95729@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 15 July 2004 05:28 pm, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [040715 11:56] wrote: > > On Thursday 15 July 2004 01:29 am, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > Also, why do you copy the proc name to the stack lower in > > > > kern_shutdown.c? Do you fear that the proc might change from > > > > under you when you're at the bottom and you can't therefore > > > > only keep a reference to the proc instead? > > > > > > Because I don't know if the proc will be there after it nukes itself. > > > > They don't nuke themselves, they just go to sleep. A quick look at the > > code would have revealed this. > > y'know what, in the context of fixing a printf I wasn't really > interested in looking that far into the scheduler. A 20 char stack > variable and a string copy at shutdown isn't such a big deal. If it > bugs you guys that much, why don't you just fix it? > > Or are you worried about getting 15 emails about how you inefficiently > printing a non-critical string like I have? :) No, I'm bothered that you are committing to code without understanding how it works or bothering to take the five minutes to read up on it to clear up the lack of understanding (which you are perfectly capable of doing.. the kproc suspend stuff isn't exactly rocket science). -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407190919.48876.jhb>