Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:55:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Sleeping thread (tid 100033, pid 16): panic in FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64 r228662 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112201552150.65078@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndB7o_vjbJefz1Bxa%2B=DEVZDxBoGPdKcVr5vNHdu-pFEFA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4EED2F1C.2060409@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111217204514.2fa77ea2@kan.dyndns.org> <CAMBSHm_MHAhTMafuHkMh_CAdOcU4zgJUgbzTNhLvajDFSp45UA@mail.gmail.com> <201112200852.23300.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndB7o_vjbJefz1Bxa%2B=DEVZDxBoGPdKcVr5vNHdu-pFEFA@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Attilio Rao wrote: > As we are here, however, I have a question for Robert here: do you think we > should support the _ddb() variant of options even in the case DDB is not > enabled in the kernel? It's possible that _ddb() should be spelled _unlocked(), or perhaps _debug(), but neither really suggests what the name should actually imply: using it is safe only in a marginal (debugging) sense, and not in a production code sense. One might also reasonable call them stack_foo_dontusethis(). The _ddb() variants are used in at least two not strictly DDB cases: redzone support, and Solaris memory allocation. And, I guess, the current lock debugging case that we're talking about now, but I'm not sure if those debugging features specifically require DDB in the kernel themselves? Roberthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1112201552150.65078>