From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 12 13:30:13 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6BB106566C;
	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:30:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from constantine.ticketswitch.com (constantine.ticketswitch.com
	[IPv6:2002:57e0:1d4e:1::3])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A938FC0A;
	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:30:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from dilbert.rattatosk ([10.64.50.6] helo=dilbert.ticketswitch.com)
	by constantine.ticketswitch.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1LMMrp-000Blp-1x; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:30:09 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ticketswitch.com with local (Exim 4.69
	(FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1LMMrp-0000S9-0I; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:30:09 +0000
To: gavin@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <1231756684.59797.1.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <E1LMMrp-0000S9-0I@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:30:09 +0000
Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Lock order reversals using bce in 7.1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:30:13 -0000

> You don't want WITNESS_KDB, but WITNESS_SKIPSPIN would probably be
> sensible to include.

OK, I will take out the WITNESS_KDB. I am reluctant to add in
WITNESS_SKIPSPIN though, as I understand it stops witnessing spin
locks, is that right ? As the only error message I have ever got out
of all fo this explicitly mentioned spinlocks then I'd rather have them
monitored.

> That's due to WITNESS_KDB and probably unrelated to your problems.

OK, will re-do all those tests - and also revert to the correct subject line
for this thread (I am not quite sure why I typed a new one, it's a stupid
thing to do as it makes it hard to follow).

cheers,

-pete.