From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 13:34:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6811065670 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:34:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC368FC12 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:34:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9494A1A4D7C; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:32:38 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:28:28 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <000e01c8885f$d78bc070$26714dd1@syix.com> <47DECC95.2030608@moneybookers.com> <200803182309.46931.danny@ricin.com> In-Reply-To: <200803182309.46931.danny@ricin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803190928.29081.jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Danny Pansters Subject: Re: +rtfree: 0xffffff0003635780 has 1 refs X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:34:01 -0000 On Tuesday 18 March 2008 06:09:46 pm Danny Pansters wrote: > On Monday 17 March 2008 20:55:01 Stefan Lambrev wrote: > > Greetings Dave, > > > > Dave Overton wrote: > > > I am new to the AMD64 stable branch, so forgive me if this has been > > > beat to death, but I can't find why this message keeps occurring over > > > and over all day. FreeBSD 7.0 Stable on AMD x2. It works (or seems > > > to) fine. > > > > > > +rtfree: 0xffffff0003635780 has 1 refs > > > > check google for rtfree() used when RTFREE() needed .. or something like > > this :) > > Those messages are annoying but harmless. > > Harmless perhaps, but it still should be fixed, so if you don't see any > similar PR already I'd suggest sending one. > > Has to do with certain variables being of one type but used as if it were > another (e.g. int vs long) which on 64bit platforms as a band-aid > gets "MSB-filled" with 0xf's to the proper size. So such warning pretty > much means "fix your code". No. The value printed is a pointer and kernel pointers on amd64 are in the upper range of the address space. The warning above has to do with code that calls rtfree() vs. the RTFREE() macro. The macro inlines the the common case (refs > 1) so in theory is cheaper than always doing a function call. -- John Baldwin