Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        julian@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: thread_sanity_check()
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207111548080.47612-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020711175511.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
all gone now..


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/
> 


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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0207111548080.47612-100000>