From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 2 19:27:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCB602DA for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 19:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B26B24DE for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 19:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id q108so7233322qgd.23 for ; Sat, 02 Aug 2014 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=22QmvO6Vsg7P6l7Pl5jDtO+gNk3I+63pxe7BCB9J0cs=; b=qP6/0Onue4AAKEXyd98rwFMFhuNlV0TyTdBIBuOEs4Eg8Cj5HDJ6CXzmqHWRfKYKsO D344MJd9v4jjTDs4fG4cFU92QMz2DGSugkgQlLyLORIMyP/EpFpVWXSFiPrT3OIU3S00 QO/6y3ThEHjyrmpBbQEzZdktf5ckS3PRzr20qgsfGubvoLDSMzGxhZOqx0c6jH4VDdVh +6lqg9GRLea/ZFYQJfFkYgVWmXq1/l3Lq9ePSx0SIYVaQk0UA3SFeYyC08JycTP61uZG RcwE5T2/NrWv1XuGYMEjE31Po+bY8ayNPdwJdeuCOowkE5C/8DzUArnWVn5FJTw9eH+a 9gUQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.27.108 with SMTP id 99mr20661539qgw.77.1407007623184; Sat, 02 Aug 2014 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.48.2 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140802183259.GL50495@funkthat.com> References: <20140801193403.GE50495@funkthat.com> <20140801222118.GH50495@funkthat.com> <20140802183259.GL50495@funkthat.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 21:27:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: domain_add(xxx) after domainfinalize... From: Svatopluk Kraus To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: John-Mark Gurney X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 19:27:04 -0000 On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:32 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Svatopluk Kraus wrote this message on Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 15:20 +0200: > > Well, I did not look at network stack for long time, so the following > > things could be obsolete now, but at least: > > > > (1) There is some room left in mbuf header on its allocation, so > protocols > > (link) headers can be added in the front of data without need of > > reallocation or data copying. The size of the room is evaluated from all > > domains at boot time. > > > > (2) All network address masks are shared among domains and protocols in > > mask radix tree. The tree is created with particular key size, which is > > again evaluated from all domains as maximal size of all known addresses. > > > > So, if new domain added after these evaluations does not break both them > > and some other things, there is no problem. Otherwise, some warnings are > > always nice if things go bad. > > But would anyone who sees these issues know that this is the problem? > And what would they do, report the problem? We'd say, yeh, we know, > but do you hit this every day? Nope, ok, we won't fix it... > > > Maybe some function which examine new domain and say there is no risk to > > add it would be nice. > > I agree... These things should have been done in the first place, but > clearly this warning wasn't enough to cause anyone to fix it.. :) > You are right, but the warning is remainder that there is something unresolved. Remove the warning and forget, imho, it's not well. Anyhow, when I asked the question in January 2011, I did not really mean to remove the warning. I was mainly aware if I did not miss something what could screw up things. Svata > > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 12:21 AM, John-Mark Gurney > wrote: > > > > > Svatopluk Kraus wrote this message on Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 00:05 +0200: > > > > Just what I've got in January 2011: > > > > > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-January/034037.html > > > > > > Sadly, after three (or six+) years, it is clear that these bugs will > > > not be fixed, and this warning message is not useful, since no one has > > > stepped up to fix them.. > > > > > > btw, you might want to create a bug w/ the information you tracked down > > > to hopefully help the person that decides to finally fix them, though > > > I doubt they will ever be fixed as people apparently don't see bad > > > behavior... > > > > > > Unless someone fixes the bugs in the next few days, I will commit the > > > following patch: > > > Index: uipc_domain.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- uipc_domain.c (revision 266964) > > > +++ uipc_domain.c (working copy) > > > @@ -227,15 +227,10 @@ > > > printf("WARNING: attempt to domain_add(%s) before " > > > "domaininit()\n", dp->dom_name); > > > #endif > > > -#ifdef notyet > > > - KASSERT(domain_init_status < 2, > > > - ("attempt to domain_add(%s) after domainfinalize()", > > > - dp->dom_name)); > > > -#else > > > - if (domain_init_status >= 2) > > > - printf("WARNING: attempt to domain_add(%s) after " > > > - "domainfinalize()\n", dp->dom_name); > > > -#endif > > > + /* > > > + * XXX - there are bugs WRT to adding domain after > domain_finalize > > > is > > > + * called > > > + */ > > > mtx_unlock(&dom_mtx); > > > } > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:34 PM, John-Mark Gurney > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, I have a laptop that devd loads the bluetooth module every > time.. > > > > > > > > > > This means I get the following error on every boot: > > > > > WARNING: attempt to domain_add(bluetooth) after domainfinalize() > > > > > WARNING: attempt to domain_add(netgraph) after domainfinalize() > > > > > > > > > > Is there any real benefit to this warning? I just looked at the > code, > > > > > and the domain gets added despite the warning... > > > > > > > > > > Also, it looks like the pervious warning, we should just make that > an > > > > > if/panic since it's clearly a programming bug, or kill the ifndef > > > > > INVARIANTS... > > -- > John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 > > "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." >