From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 4 21:37:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 64E9616A424; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:37:43 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AF316A422; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:37:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (ns1.pittgoth.com [216.38.206.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE70143D45; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:37:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (ip68-105-180-11.dc.dc.cox.net [68.105.180.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k14MIfLk086461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:18:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 16:37:23 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: Robert Watson Message-Id: <20060204163723.63a536fc.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200602041253.k14Crecf011086@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200602041253.k14Crecf011086@repoman.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: perforce@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 91049 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:37:44 -0000 On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:53:40 GMT Robert Watson wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=91049 > > Change 91049 by rwatson@rwatson_peppercorn on 2006/02/04 12:53:12 > > When GC'ing a thread, assert that it has no active audit record. > This should not happen, but with this assert, brueffer and I would > not have spent 45 minutes trying to figure out why he wasn't > seeing audit records with the audit version in CVS. > Good catch! I had just booted the new CURRENT and was wondering about this. Thanks! -- Tom Rhodes