From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 4 22:09:48 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BD91065830; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:09:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C550F8FC08; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 22:09:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mA4M9UQH004649; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:09:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: David Xu Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:08:42 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200810230755.m9N7tceu051313@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200810230755.m9N7tceu051313@svn.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811041708.42804.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]); Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:09:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/8568/Tue Nov 4 13:53:00 2008 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx 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 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:09:49 -0000 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