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

Reply via email to