Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:08:42 -0500
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r184199 - in head/sys: kern sys
Message-ID:  <200811041708.42804.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200810230755.m9N7tceu051313@svn.freebsd.org>
References:  <200810230755.m9N7tceu051313@svn.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 23 October 2008 03:55:38 am David Xu wrote:
> Author: davidxu
> Date: Thu Oct 23 07:55:38 2008
> New Revision: 184199
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/184199
> 
> Log:
>   Actually, for signal and thread suspension, extra process spin lock is
>   unnecessary, the normal process lock and thread lock are enough. The
>   spin lock is still needed for process and thread exiting to mimic
>   single sched_lock.

With thread_lock() it is not safe to drop a mutex while holding thread_lock().  
Instead, it can result in a deadlock.  Peter has a test case that deadlocks 
due to these changes.  Please revert this.

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200811041708.42804.jhb>