From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 21:11:57 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560A216A4CE; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:11:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18D143D39; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:11:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8ALBuJt003171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i8ALBp1W060335; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:11:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16706.6294.966077.389173@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:11:50 -0400 (EDT) To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200409101629.32653.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <16705.57806.550902.483858@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200409101450.47478.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <16706.309.398789.905433@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200409101629.32653.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid cc: John-Mark Gurney cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: witness oddity X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:11:57 -0000 John Baldwin writes: > > > > Does witness know at the time that it emits the warning that its a > > "class" type of reversal, rather than a reversal based on previous > > observations? If so, would it be possible to emit a warning saying > > something like "Holding a sleep mutex while acquiring an sx lock is > > probited by law" (maybe add " violators will be shot" for grins ;) > > That's a possibility yes. > Thanks... I think that might be helpful.. Drew