From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 15 05:29:41 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4BAA916A4CE; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:29:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 366F943D2D; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:29:41 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 2E9D75C86D; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:29:41 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20040715052941.GL95729@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20040715050225.GA87532@freefall.freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040715050225.GA87532@freefall.freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c vfs_subr.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:29:41 -0000

* Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org> [040714 22:02] wrote:
> 
>   Why on earth would you move that first printf in boot() to inside
>   the loop and introduce a variable to not reprint it after the first
>   iteration?

Because there may be no bufs.

>   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.

So glad to be back,
-Alfred