From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  7 10:01:40 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 C529A16A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Mon,  7 Jun 2004 10:01:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D14943D45
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Mon,  7 Jun 2004 10:01:40 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i57A1RYv010876;
	Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200406071001.i57A1RYv010876@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw
In-Reply-To: <04060713321212.86443@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: dl@leo.org
Subject: Re: LOR No 9 and strange other kernel messages
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:01:40 -0000

On  7 Jun, Tai-hwa Liang wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On  7 Jun, Tai-hwa Liang wrote:
>> > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Don Lewis wrote:

>> >> The code that calls pcm_inprog() and prints the "x: 2" debug message
>> >> appears to be an attempt at implementing a reader/writer lock.  I'm
>> >> pretty sure the failure that triggers the debug message is harmless,
>> >> other than causing the sysctl() call to return EWOULDBLOCK.
>> >
>> > I'm glad to know that the message is harmless. However, the "x: %d" is
>> > a little too obscured to endusers IMHO. Shouldn't that be protected by
>> > #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC or something like PCM_DEBUG?
>>
>> This diagnotic message should probably just go away.  Also the locking
>> should be fixed to avoid the EWOULDBLOCK error.
> 
> Should I file a PR or just forward the thread to the pcm maintainer?
> (to be honest, I have no idea about who he/she is, luigi@ / cg@ / ?)

I can take care of it, since I'm one of the last people to touch the pcm
stuff.

Fixing up the locking problems in the pcm code is also on my TODO list,
but I haven't had time to work on it and I wouldn't complain if someone
else committed proper fixes.