From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 17:28:48 2010 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 BDEAA1065673; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:28:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756768FC23; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA26038; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:28:45 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4CA4C8CD.3040209@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:28:45 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100920 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mdf@freebsd.org References: <201009301705.o8UH5Nmm075714@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 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: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:28:48 -0000 on 30/09/2010 20:18 mdf@FreeBSD.org said the following: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Andriy Gapon 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