Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:12:38 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238907 - projects/calloutng/sys/kern Message-ID: <201209130912.39029.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndDnYE3CKNRajGn5YV4TBKDRCnX3=cgyT2yA9mxbnkangQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201207301350.q6UDobCI099069@svn.freebsd.org> <201209121511.42296.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndDnYE3CKNRajGn5YV4TBKDRCnX3=cgyT2yA9mxbnkangQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:07:11 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Monday, September 10, 2012 9:11:22 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > >> Speaking of which, I think it is time for curthread != NULL checks in > >> the locking primitives to go, or there is a good reason I really don't > >> understand to keep them? > > > > They can probably be axed. > > What do you think about this? > Please note that I would also axe the check in printtrap() on several > arches, but maybe there is a valid reason to keep it I'm not thinking > right now, so I left it out in this patch. There can be a window where curthread is NULL during early boot (e.g. if you got a trap / fault during initi386() or the equivalent). I think the patch is fine. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201209130912.39029.jhb>