Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:55:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: Sleeping thread (tid 100033, pid 16): panic in FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64 r228662 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112201552150.65078@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndB7o_vjbJefz1Bxa%2B=DEVZDxBoGPdKcVr5vNHdu-pFEFA@mail.gmail.com> References: <4EED2F1C.2060409@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111217204514.2fa77ea2@kan.dyndns.org> <CAMBSHm_MHAhTMafuHkMh_CAdOcU4zgJUgbzTNhLvajDFSp45UA@mail.gmail.com> <201112200852.23300.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndB7o_vjbJefz1Bxa%2B=DEVZDxBoGPdKcVr5vNHdu-pFEFA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Attilio Rao wrote: > As we are here, however, I have a question for Robert here: do you think we > should support the _ddb() variant of options even in the case DDB is not > enabled in the kernel? It's possible that _ddb() should be spelled _unlocked(), or perhaps _debug(), but neither really suggests what the name should actually imply: using it is safe only in a marginal (debugging) sense, and not in a production code sense. One might also reasonable call them stack_foo_dontusethis(). The _ddb() variants are used in at least two not strictly DDB cases: redzone support, and Solaris memory allocation. And, I guess, the current lock debugging case that we're talking about now, but I'm not sure if those debugging features specifically require DDB in the kernel themselves? Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1112201552150.65078>