On 05-Apr-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <
> said:
>
>> As a safety check we should probably zero the pid right before zfree()'ing a
>> proc in wait() however, so that a stale pointer to a free'd process doesn't
>> have a valid pid if we do this.
>
> Should not be necessary. Here is the logic:
A
< said:
> As a safety check we should probably zero the pid right before zfree()'ing a
> proc in wait() however, so that a stale pointer to a free'd process doesn't
> have a valid pid if we do this.
Should not be necessary. Here is the logic:
p = sip->si_p;
mtx_lock_spin(&sched
On 05-Apr-01 John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 05-Apr-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> <> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> If I'm reading this backtrace right, the thread handling the sound
>>> hardware called selwakeup() (frame #19). This called
On 05-Apr-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> If I'm reading this backtrace right, the thread handling the sound
>> hardware called selwakeup() (frame #19). This called pfind() (frame
>> #18), which tries to lock allproc.
>
&
<
said:
> If I'm reading this backtrace right, the thread handling the sound
> hardware called selwakeup() (frame #19). This called pfind() (frame
> #18), which tries to lock allproc.
selwakeup() shouldn't need to call pfind(). Because the process table
is in type-stabl
