Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:26:02 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic with this morning's (~9am EDT, 15 jan 2004) sources. Message-ID: <200401161726.02787.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpfzefsgbt.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <EE3D3FBAFFCAED448C21C398FDAD91AC0108D8@EBE1.gc.nat> <200401161659.42394.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <xzpfzefsgbt.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 16 January 2004 05:01 pm, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > You could only lock newfdp #ifdef INVARIANTS perhaps since that is the > > only reason you are doing it. That doesn't pessimize production kernels > > while still letting your assertions work ok. > > now that's an idea (though it's a bit of a hack) > > > You could also perhaps tweak the > > mtx_assert to somehow check the state of the fd pointer to see if it is= a > > new table (refcount of 0 or some such) > > that would pessimize the common case... Well, only for kernels with INVARIANTS in them. :) If you do 'if (foo)=20 mtx_assert(...)' then gcc should optimize the whole thing out without=20 invariants. =2D-=20 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" =3D http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401161726.02787.jhb>