Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:23:34 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r205444 - head/sys/i386/i386 Message-ID: <20100322152334.GA24534@sandvine.com> In-Reply-To: <201003220849.36246.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201003221152.o2MBqs9M012769@svn.freebsd.org> <201003220849.36246.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 08:49:36AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 22 March 2010 7:52:54 am Ed Maste wrote: > > Author: emaste > > Date: Mon Mar 22 11:52:53 2010 > > New Revision: 205444 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205444 > > > > Log: > > Merge r197455 from amd64: > > > > Add a backtrace to the "fpudna in kernel mode!" case, to help track down > > where this comes from. > > > > Reviewed by: bde > > Should we make this a panic instead perhaps? I was just about to follow up with a comment to that effect. We do want it to become a panic, but I would prefer to hold off until we address the known issue with padlock(4). http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=amd64/135014 Bruce Evans' comment in that PR is: > The printf should always have been a panic, but changing to a panic > now would be too drastic. -Ed
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100322152334.GA24534>