Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:17:36 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, mdf@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r212964 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <AANLkTi=jSE00qffmHPMKSk-e%2B8sHYu6bxuo20vsxLgb2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C98D9FD.4050809@freebsd.org> References: <201009211507.o8LF7iVv097676@svn.freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=CTr%2BZDs3znsF-SXDp__xxbetjnhSBxiDhfFYy@mail.gmail.com> <4C98D9FD.4050809@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/9/21 Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>: > on 21/09/2010 18:17 mdf@FreeBSD.org said the following: >> I'd recommend using stack_print_ddb(), as that avoids any locking >> which may hang depending on how the kernel panic'd. > > How does the following look to you? > I hope I haven't freed too much from under DDB. > The patch compiles fine with STACK && !DDB. In general, if you really want to go with that route, I'd rename the functions with _unlocked() prefix (there is actually no need to tell they are _ddb specific) and maybe add _ddb() wrappers, you can have more opinions. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=jSE00qffmHPMKSk-e%2B8sHYu6bxuo20vsxLgb2>