From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 23 17:52:30 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC3DA07 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:52:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vijju.singh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f47.google.com (mail-ee0-f47.google.com [74.125.83.47]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC66413CB for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id b57so384173eek.6 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=cwoJB8yI68udH27zgNVqpCZBclNqUofD/Fu+8eVvLXo=; b=E77pVzldBYHbj93AWDcEliD2m2Fa+/KXMhsqUJ3MSTT4cq4Y79kW0KRWoUSm2U4aHZ MsmaKwoTUELcc4auOMwC+PQXL7AqssaLnuEpJWHpv32ojBORtDzjgX+HyUbe4ZL9hUlf rJJC4UpJmiSwglr33X/qxXVmlCnEg2FRi4ZVS/2/UaMH/24C2iw3YHKOBtCsTviPe5Vq Z0RKCPedgZEEjntvShpr0a1stIhMXjUVaU8fNtCYxOrIO6kxIPlH75g45aXbrLDXKByB fAWIfW8pzF3AH7vg8hTPbc2zL34lati7UJGH/GIHEvJpn59RGVaHy2rfjVE8j/69HTJH MjDQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.14.173.71 with SMTP id u47mr18136004eel.24.1366739096589; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.202.137 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:44:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: vmspace_fork() From: Vijay Singh To: hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:52:30 -0000 Hackers, what does hitting the following assert in vmspace_fork() imply? 3101 new_map = &vm2 ->vm_map ; 3102 locked = vm_map_trylock (new_map); */* trylock to silence WITNESS */* 3103 KASSERT (locked , (*"vmspace_fork: lock failed"*)); I am hitting the assert in line 3103 and it seems like the assumption is that the trylock will always get the lock? -vijay