Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:51:11 +0000 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Spurious witness warning when destroying spin mtx Message-ID: <CAJ-FndCh4T-ezOnGEw8LEpE32LAfo4HM-FvbfOW8weEuOQV=7A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFMmRNwn-d5P=hRxx9gyhNYJ%2B7ycVqzv-4FzXXvZGg0bC81REg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFMmRNyYccyXFh0r2jC2Q5ynYQH09SiZNguLp8X4JWSX4Lua5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDL18oQdFZQh4AKr9NbOc2WxWJoDVjOtkjt%2Bb7w36E_kA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMmRNwn-d5P=hRxx9gyhNYJ%2B7ycVqzv-4FzXXvZGg0bC81REg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld. >> There are likely historically reasons for that, but I would like to >> know which one are those and eventually fix them out. >> FWIK, all the other locking primitives assume the lock is already >> unheld when destroying and I think it would be good to have that for >> mutexes as well. >> >> Can you please show which lock triggers the panic you saw? >> >> Thanks, >> Attilio >> > > It was taskqueue_free: taskqueue_free() must not be called in places where there are still races, so the lock is not really meaningful and should be acquired. 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-FndCh4T-ezOnGEw8LEpE32LAfo4HM-FvbfOW8weEuOQV=7A>