From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 8 10:14:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360C637B401 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 10:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EF543F93 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 10:14:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h48HEhMS023120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 8 May 2003 13:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id h48HEco04469; Thu, 8 May 2003 13:14:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16058.36990.299231.566625@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 13:14:38 -0400 (EDT) To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030508.102242.72244093.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20030508.124929.74756191.haro@kgt.co.jp> <20030508.102242.72244093.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOR with -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:14:52 -0000 M. Warner Losh writes: > In message: <20030508.124929.74756191.haro@kgt.co.jp> > Munehiro Matsuda writes: > : Hi all, > : > : I got this LOR with today's -current, when I tried to start X Window up. > : > : lock order reversal > : 1st 0xc30b94c0 vm object (vm object) @ vm/vm_object.c:507 > : 2nd 0xc082f110 system map (system map) @ vm/vm_kern.c:325 > > That reminds me, would anybody object if I were to hack traceback so > that it would actually put the traceback in the dmesg buffer when not > called from ddb? FWIW, I think that tracebacks generated from DDB_TRACE should also go into the dmesg buffer. It would save quite a few initial exchanges with users.. Drew