Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:36:04 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: marking normal sleep identifiers as such. Message-ID: <40089.1055943364@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:33:18 EDT." <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030618092937.4523A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030618092937.4523A-100000@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes: >> Should we adopt that as our convention ? > >One >disadvantage of changing to a common name with no distinct string is that >it makes it quite a bit harder to track down the sleep call in the kernel; >you can no longer glimpse/grep on the state to find the stage in the >thread event loop you've reached, which would be one reason to prefer a >fooidle approach. I actually thought a bit more about that. I think all sleeping calls should allow a string to be specified, also when we sleep on semaphores for instance. And I think we should capture __FILE__ and __LINE__ as well, at least when DDB or DIAGNOSTIC is in play. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40089.1055943364>