Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:44:44 +0000 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LK_SHARED/LK_DOWNGRADE adjustments to lock.9 manual page Message-ID: <CAJ-FndA%2BNSYDpOuhuFKTf6puPJz9aBSrNH-a-TfRKuqY-ZgAjw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50A552C5.5060703@FreeBSD.org> References: <50A4E8C0.5030608@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-FndAfUPOWzvpXtn7tHfzV00a%2B1PkfcXmEYo1eNg3RZG4Bew@mail.gmail.com> <50A552C5.5060703@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote: > on 15/11/2012 20:46 Attilio Rao said the following: >> On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> To people knowing the code, >>> >>> do the following documentation changes look correct? >> >> The latter chunk is not correct. >> It will panic only if assertions are on. > > But the current content is not correct too? Indeed, current content is crappy. >> I was thinking that however >> it would be good idea to patch lockmgr to panic also in non-debugging >> kernel situation. > > It would make sense indeed, IMO. Do you think you can test this patch?: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/lockmgr_forcerec.patch I think the LK_NOSHARE case is still fine with just asserts. Once this patch goes in, you are free to commit your documentation one. Thanks for fixing doc. 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?CAJ-FndA%2BNSYDpOuhuFKTf6puPJz9aBSrNH-a-TfRKuqY-ZgAjw>