on 02/12/2011 03:04 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
you
On 12/1/11 5:04 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapona...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
you (committers) any
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
you (committers) any more... :-)
The real question is rather whether
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100,
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
Please consider:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch
This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch now.
Here is it.
diff --git a/sys/vm/vm_page.c
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
Please consider:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch
This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
+#define vm_page_lock_assert(m, a) \
+ vm_page_lock_assert_KBI((m), (a), LOCK_FILE, LOCK_LINE)
I think you should put the \ in the last tab and also, for
It looks good to me.
Attilio
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
+#define vm_page_lock_assert(m, a) \
+ vm_page_lock_assert_KBI((m), (a), LOCK_FILE,
2011/11/20 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
What do you think about it?
This one only changes the KBI ? Note that _sx suffix is not reserved.
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
What do you think about it?
This one only changes the
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:22:38PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up
vm_map.c:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:22:38PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:56:55AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In other words,
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In other words, something
that hints at the function's reason for existing.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In
2011/11/15 m...@freebsd.org:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func.
On Sunday, November 06, 2011 11:42:04 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com
wrote:
Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
a lot of
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
you (committers) any more... :-) I.e. is it possible to change your mindset
from me (and us) versus you to just us? The lines between committers
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 9:29 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
[...]
However, if you want to know, my heart tends to be with BSDs.
Unfortunately, it's a sad love-story where your Beloved keeps
deceiving you day after day. You want to
On 11/9/11, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischerjul...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe
On 11/8/11 9:29 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Julian Elischerjul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischerjul...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To
On 10/11/2011, at 4:09, Julian Elischer wrote:
well write a driver for it.. what do you think I'm doing with the driver I'm
talking about?
I wrote several bypass network card drivers when I was at cisco/ironport..
it's not rocket science,
though it would be nice if we were to come up with
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04,
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov
[cc list trimmed]
on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only talk
without action, I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
quite a large patch-set, I will not post it
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only talk
without action, I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
quite a large patch-set, I will not post it directly here, however, it
is available on github:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only talk
without action, I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
quite a large patch-set, I will
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
[cc list trimmed]
on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only talk
without action, I did implement
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Arnaud
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
[cc list trimmed]
on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
To avoid future
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only talk
without action, I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
quite a large patch-set, I will
On 11/8/11 5:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Attilio Raoatti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombelacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombelacom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio
On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischerjul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only talk
without action, I did implement what I suggested above. As
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischerjul...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Again, I did not spent time converting all
2011/11/7 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
On 11/06/2011 06:43, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 03:00:58PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/05/2011 10:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousovkostik...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
[restored cc: to the original poster]
on 02/11/2011 08:10 Benjamin Kaduk said the following:
I am perhaps confused. Last I checked, bsd.kmod.mk caused '-include
opt_global.h' to be passed on the command line. Is the
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In other words, something
that hints at the function's reason for existing.
Sure. Below is the extraction of only
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
I'm unsure if this replies to your concerns because you just criticize
without making a real technical question in this post.
I made comments on
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In other words, something
that hints at the
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:47:59AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func.
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In other words, something
that hints at the
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 03:00:58PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/05/2011 10:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousovkostik...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
a lot of violations in regard of the namespaces, IMO. The __* namespace
is reserved for the language implementation, so our freestanding program
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
a lot of violations in regard of the namespaces, IMO. The __* namespace
is
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
from the (potentially)
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
from the (potentially) loadable modules to the new KPI until it
is agreed upon.
diff --git
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
from the (potentially) loadable
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Again, I did not spent
On 11/05/2011 10:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousovkostik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:51:10PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/03/2011 08:24, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:40:08AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/02/2011 05:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[restored cc: to the original poster]
As Bruce Evans has pointed to me privately [I am not
On 11/04/2011 05:08, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:51:10PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/03/2011 08:24, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:40:08AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/02/2011 05:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[restored cc: to the original poster]
As Bruce
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:09:09AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/04/2011 05:08, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:51:10PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
I would suggest introducing the vm_page_bits_t change first. If, at the
same time, you change the return type from the function
On 11/04/2011 10:30, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:09:09AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/04/2011 05:08, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:51:10PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
I would suggest introducing the vm_page_bits_t change first. If, at the
same time, you
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:48:45AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/04/2011 10:30, Kostik Belousov wrote:
for (b = i = 0; i= PAGE_SIZE / DEV_BSIZE; ++i) {
if (i == (PAGE_SIZE / DEV_BSIZE) ||
-(m-valid (1 i))
+(m-valid ((vm_page_bits_t)1 i))
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:40:08AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/02/2011 05:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[restored cc: to the original poster]
As Bruce Evans has pointed to me privately [I am not sure why privately],
there
is already an example in i386 and amd64 atomic.h, where operations are
On 11/03/2011 08:24, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:40:08AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/02/2011 05:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[restored cc: to the original poster]
As Bruce Evans has pointed to me privately [I am not sure why privately],
there
is already an example in i386 and
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Penta Upa wrote:
Yes that seems to be the problem. It will is for out of tree modules.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=161887 . I have to verify if
moving the module to /usr/src/ tree fixes the problem.
Thanks,
Penta
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:04 AM, K. Macy
[restored cc: to the original poster]
on 02/11/2011 08:10 Benjamin Kaduk said the following:
I am perhaps confused. Last I checked, bsd.kmod.mk caused '-include
opt_global.h' to be passed on the command line. Is the issue just that the
opt_global.h used for the kmod could be different from
On 11/02/2011 05:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[restored cc: to the original poster]
on 02/11/2011 08:10 Benjamin Kaduk said the following:
I am perhaps confused. Last I checked, bsd.kmod.mk caused '-include
opt_global.h' to be passed on the command line. Is the issue just that the
opt_global.h
Yes that seems to be the problem. It will is for out of tree modules.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=161887 . I have to verify if
moving the module to /usr/src/ tree fixes the problem.
Thanks,
Penta
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:04 AM, K. Macy km...@freebsd.org wrote:
Someone was seeing
Someone was seeing the same issue with the vmtools kmod. The only
thing that might make sense is that the page lock array is defined as
being a different size in your kmod as in the kernel itself so the
lock corresponding to the page you're locking differs between the two
files.
Cheers
On Fri,
I created a bug report since there wasn't a response to this email.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=161887 The test code is attached
to the bug report.
Regards,
Penta
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Sean Bruno sean...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 08:25 -0700, Penta
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 08:25 -0700, Penta Upa wrote:
Attached is a test module (vmtest) and the makefile used. Uname output from
the system is
I only see a Makefile attached here. Can you attach the code you are
using?
Sean
___
Hi,
I'm facing a kernel panic at vm_page_wire(). Page is locked with
vm_page_lock() yet i get the following panic
panic: mutex page lock not owned at /usr/src/sys/vm/vm_page:1845
Code sequence is as below
vm_page_lock(pp);
vm_page_lock_assert(pp, MA_OWNED); /* No panic here */
vm_page_wire(pp);
74 matches
Mail list logo
