From owner-p4-projects Fri May 10 9:41:39 2002 Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 3414B37B40D; Fri, 10 May 2002 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from 12-234-96-171.client.attbi.com (12-234-96-171.client.attbi.com [12.234.96.171]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD9737B408 for ; Fri, 10 May 2002 09:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 12-234-96-171.client.attbi.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2D4E7A900; Fri, 10 May 2002 09:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:43:10 -0700 From: Jonathan Mini To: Julian Elischer Cc: Perforce Change Reviews Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11012 for review Message-ID: <20020510094310.H43682@stylus.haikugeek.com> References: <200205081533.g48FX3q20811@freefall.freebsd.org> <3CDBF27F.76C5AE0E@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3CDBF27F.76C5AE0E@elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Fri, May 10, 2002 at 09:17:03AM -0700 Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer [julian@elischer.org] wrote : > Jonathan Mini wrote: > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/p4db/chv.cgi?CH=11012 > > > > Change 11012 by mini@mini_stylus on 2002/05/08 08:32:05 > > > > - pass thread's instead of proc's to CURSIG() and issignal() > > - mark a thread TDS_UNQUEUED when blocking it while its parent > > handles its signal (via ptrace(2)). > > > > This make gdb work properly again, and fixed ptrace(2) on normal > > processes. > > This will probably mean that what we have is capable of almost being committed. I think we are pretty close. Some locking problems appear when the ksetest program is run a large (100+ or so) times, those should probably be fixed first. > You and jhb said that the thread allocator could be rewritten using the new > uma mechanisms. if that is done, then we could check in what we have > minus some changes that are dependent on comments from others.. That is done, and checked in. There are a few problems with it still. > (I think DES would like to have a go at the ptrace changes) Sure. Also, gdb doesn't work too well on threaded apps, but I think that is expected at this point. > Is the system stable with only non KSE processes? I haven't noticed any problems with non-KSE processes, however I haven't done any real testing. > If we could generate good diffs it would help > others to look and comment. Yeah. Other than the cleanups I've mentioned above (some locking, and the uma stuff needs a second pass), my next goal is to get clean diffs so that we can start the review process. -- Jonathan Mini 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