Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:28:45 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: mdf@freebsd.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r213305 - in head/sys: gdb kern sys Message-ID: <4CA4C8CD.3040209@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=03MUdHz2u%2BOz3G3PQqNkCHrB5S1K6zwhs2XMt@mail.gmail.com> References: <201009301705.o8UH5Nmm075714@svn.freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=03MUdHz2u%2BOz3G3PQqNkCHrB5S1K6zwhs2XMt@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 30/09/2010 20:18 mdf@FreeBSD.org said the following: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Author: avg >> Date: Thu Sep 30 17:05:23 2010 >> New Revision: 213305 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/213305 >> >> Log: >> there must be only one SYSINIT with SI_SUB_RUN_SCHEDULER+SI_ORDER_ANY order >> >> SI_SUB_RUN_SCHEDULER+SI_ORDER_ANY should only be used to call >> scheduler() function which turns the initial thread into swapper proper >> and thus there is no further SYSINIT processing. > > Does this imply that scheduler() shouldn't be called from a sysinit at > all, and instead a hand-call after processing all the boot-time > sysinit's would make more sense? This prevents the bug from > reoccuring, and also prevents bugs with adding a SYSINIT that runs at > SI_SUB_RUN_SCHEDULER + 1 time. I have no firm opinion about this. What you suggest sounds good to me. OTOH, both SI_SUB_RUN_SCHEDULER and SI_ORDER_ANY are documented (in sys/kernel.h though) to be the last order/sub-order. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CA4C8CD.3040209>