On 12/15/09 07:39 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
I have an initial code review for the fix for bug:
6768950 panic[cpu1]/thread=ffffff084ce0b3e0: syscall_asm_amd64.s:480
lwp ffffff0756a8cdc0, pcb_rupdate != 0
There is a webrev at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.6768950/
The code changes in the sn1 and solaris10 brands are basically
identical. I know there is a lot of common code there but I
didn't want to clutter up this bug fix with the unrelated changes
necessary to make the code common. I'll be addressing that with
a separate fix.
My initial testing of these changes looks good but I still need
to run more extensive tests.
Thanks,
Jerry
_______________________________________________
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi Jerry,
I'll add one question to Ed's suggestions:
----------
usr/src/lib/brand/sn1/sn1_brand/amd64/sn1_handler.s
44: Shouldn't this function be named "sn1_handler_table"?
Jordan
_______________________________________________
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org