Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:08:39 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r227394 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 i386/i386 Message-ID: <20111110100839.GK50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20111110062322.GA1696@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <201111091725.pA9HPhXh092218@svn.freebsd.org> <20111109173128.GF50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111110062322.GA1696@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Q7Dt3iDhSkbxWkBL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 07:23:23AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 07:31:28PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:25:43PM +0000, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > Author: kib > > > Date: Wed Nov 9 17:25:43 2011 > > > New Revision: 227394 > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227394 > > >=20 > > > Log: > > > Stopped process may legitimately have some threads sleeping and not > > > suspended, if the sleep is uninterruptible. > > Even more, stopped process might have some threads still running in the > > kernel mode, or inhibited due to wait on blockable locks. I was unable > > to design an expression that would assert that such thread will be stop= ped > > at the kernel->user boundary. > >=20 > > The assertion itself is useful and catched several bugs, but theoretica= lly > > can cause false positives. If any report of the fired assert for kernel= -mode > > thread is provided, I will remove the assertions. >=20 > If in five years some change will make it to fire and you won't be > around, nobody will remember this e-mail of yours and someone will spend > time on looking for a bug that doesn't exist. >=20 > If we know it can cause false positives, I'd be in favour of removing it > or changing it into a warning or at the very least moving this > information into commit log. Yes, I do agree that removing the assertion is the most straightforward solution, but on the assertion already catched more real bugs then caused headaches (my headache, BTW). Either I change the third or condition to plain P_SHOULDSTOP(), or create a way to assert exactly what I need. --Q7Dt3iDhSkbxWkBL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk67oqcACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4i7UQCbBBAr44zlXh779kHR51peBQZP pTUAnAgkhE+nhoHx84FAffaPMCq6ZIab =P2mO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q7Dt3iDhSkbxWkBL--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111110100839.GK50300>