Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:41:40 -0500 From: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r326286 - head/sys/cddl/dev/dtrace Message-ID: <20171127214140.GB75832@raichu> In-Reply-To: <2717040.9stBD4iAp4@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201711271842.vARIgNCk007369@repo.freebsd.org> <2717040.9stBD4iAp4@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:28:07AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, November 27, 2017 06:42:23 PM Mark Johnston wrote: > > Author: markj > > Date: Mon Nov 27 18:42:23 2017 > > New Revision: 326286 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/326286 > > > > Log: > > Don't use pcpu_find() to determine if a CPU ID is valid. > > > > This addresses assertion failures after r326218. > > I'd perhaps rather revert the assertion as per my other mail? I considered waiting for a resolution of that thread, but it seems to me that using CPU_FOREACH()/CPU_ABSENT() is more idiomatic anyway? We already use CPU_FOREACH() in a few places in dtrace.c, and dtrace_ioctl.c is meant to be a fork of the ioctl handler from illumos, i.e., we shouldn't make much effort to avoid diverging from upstream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171127214140.GB75832>