Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:58:58 -0700 From: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, jhb@freebsd.org, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <20020516225858.D25907@stylus.haikugeek.com> In-Reply-To: <20020517051428.1701B380A@overcee.wemm.org>; from peter@wemm.org on Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:14:28PM -0700 References: <20020516214147.B25907@stylus.haikugeek.com> <20020517051428.1701B380A@overcee.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm [peter@wemm.org] wrote : > Jonathan Mini wrote: > > > The only problem he foresaw was that the init/fini functions could be called > > by the pager daemon, but I don't see any problem there either. > > Somewhere along the way we were planning to put in code that checked for > things that *might* call tsleep() and trap mutexes being held. I dont know > if the UMA stuff calls tsleep (directly or indirectly) or not, but it was > my understanding that it is a Bad Idea(TM) to call anything that can tsleep > with a mutex held. > I think maybe you misunderstand. The problem isn't that the pager calls the uma init/fini functions, but rather that *my* init/fini functions may block inside the VM. -- 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?20020516225858.D25907>