Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:09:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, julian@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: thread_sanity_check() Message-ID: <XFMail.20020712140901.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207111548080.47612-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11-Jul-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > all gone now.. Ok, I didn't mind it being there, just maybe under INVARIANTS instead is all. > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >> Considering the incredible amount of complaining over having a >> cred_free_thread() function conditionally compiled into the kernel >> that only did a mutex lock, decrement, and mutex unlock in the common >> case, why isn't thread_sanity_check() (or it's body) conditionally >> compiled? It's a lot more expensive than cred_free_thread() and isn't >> even under INVARIANTS. Pardon me if I find this a bit hypocritical. >> >> -- >> >> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ >> "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ >> > -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020712140901.jhb>