On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 20:07:31 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 31/05/2011 20:29 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
+ mtx_init(mbp-msg_lock, msgbuf, NULL, MTX_SPIN);
Sorry that I didn't gather myself
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 20:47:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 20:07:31 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 31/05/2011 20:29 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
+ mtx_init(mbp-msg_lock,
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 20:47:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
That particular solution doesn't lock the normal kernel printf path, and so
won't fix what we're trying to fix. (We've got lots of disks in
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 20:07:31 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 31/05/2011 20:29 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
+ mtx_init(mbp-msg_lock, msgbuf, NULL, MTX_SPIN);
Sorry that I didn't gather myself together for a review before this change
got
on 31/05/2011 20:29 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
+ mtx_init(mbp-msg_lock, msgbuf, NULL, MTX_SPIN);
Sorry that I didn't gather myself together for a review before this change got
actually committed.
Do you see any reason not to make this spinlock recursive?
I am a little bit worried
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 31/05/2011 20:29 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
+ mtx_init(mbp-msg_lock, msgbuf, NULL, MTX_SPIN);
Sorry that I didn't gather myself together for a review before this change got
actually committed.
Do you see any reason not to make this
On 6/1/11 12:07 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 31/05/2011 20:29 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
+ mtx_init(mbp-msg_lock, msgbuf, NULL, MTX_SPIN);
Sorry that I didn't gather myself together for a review before this
change got
actually committed.
Do you see any reason not to make this
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
Author: ken
Date: Tue May 31 17:29:58 2011
New Revision: 222537
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/222537
Log:
Fix apparent garbage in the message buffer.
While we have had a fix in place (options
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
Author: ken
Date: Tue May 31 17:29:58 2011
New Revision: 222537
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/222537
Log:
Fix apparent garbage in the message
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 14:00:18 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
Author: ken
Date: Tue May 31 17:29:58 2011
New Revision: 222537
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/222537
Log:
?Fix apparent garbage in
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 14:00:18 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
Author: ken
Date: Tue May 31 17:29:58 2011
New Revision: 222537
URL:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 15:02:37 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 14:00:18 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org
wrote:
Author:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 15:02:37 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Kenneth D. Merry k...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 14:00:18 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, May 31,
13 matches
Mail list logo