From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 11 00:47:03 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2506106566B; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:47:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aryeh.friedman@gmail.com) Received: from mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.4.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845498FC17; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:47:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aryeh.friedman@gmail.com) Received: from flosoft.no-ip.biz (ool-435559b8.dyn.optonline.net [67.85.89.184]) by mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTP id <0JXJ00G66JIEUMF0@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from flosoft.no-ip.biz (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by flosoft.no-ip.biz (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2B0l1Zl000374; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:47:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:46:56 -0400 From: "Aryeh M. Friedman" In-reply-to: <200803102248.m2AMmRFv055635@repoman.freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson Message-id: <47D5D680.9000302@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 References: <200803102248.m2AMmRFv055635@repoman.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080309) Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:47:03 -0000 Jeff Roberson wrote: > jeff 2008-03-10 22:48:27 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/kern sched_ule.c > Log: > - Fix the invalid priority panics people are seeing by forcing > tdq_runq_add to select the runq rather than hoping we set it properly > when we adjusted the priority. This involves the same number of > branches as before so should perform identically without the extra > fragility. > Does this fix the diablo panic I reported to you last week?