Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 00:19:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 10740 for review Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205040015400.86274-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020503232550.H81190@stylus.haikugeek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Jonathan Mini wrote: > Julian Elischer [julian@elischer.org] wrote : > > > BTW > > warning warning... > > I redid fork() fo rdiff-reduction.. > > it MAY EXPLODE. > > I have not checked the locking logic, just done the mechanical > > bits. > > Yeah, I saw that. Right now I'm going through and double-checking > everything. I know that the call to thread_single() will panic in a KSE process because it does an assert that the process is locked, and in the new version it isn't. I was going to ask jhb to look at it and decide where the locking would best be fiddled to extend it to cover this call.. I'm not absolutly sure yet that I got all the added bits from theold one.. that's the problem with the old one.. it was so big a change that it obfuscated teh functional diffs to the point where even I am not sure what they were.. :-( > > -- > Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> > http://www.haikugeek.com > > "He who is not aware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge." > -- Richard Whatley > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0205040015400.86274-100000>