From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 5 23:10:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1ABC16A4CE; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:10:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D079943FA3; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:10:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC394A9A5; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:10:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22691-02-40; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:10:02 -0600 (CST) Received: by cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 19572) id 96E544A9A3; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:10:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:10:02 -0600 From: Alan Cox To: Mike Silbersack Message-ID: <20031206071002.GE13902@cs.rice.edu> References: <200312060545.hB65jWx4095325@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031206005341.D33930@odysseus.silby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031206005341.D33930@odysseus.silby.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p5 at rice.edu cc: Alan Cox cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_mmap.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 07:10:06 -0000 On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 12:54:51AM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > WHOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO > > I'm not sure if any has realized it yet, but I think that this may be our > first actual deadlock condition. This means that we're actually locking > things! > > Congrats, > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack > That's one way of looking at it. :-) The other is that we really need witness to support lockmgr()-based locks. Regards, Alan