Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:50:28 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: WITNESS bug Message-ID: <200410191650.28544.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20041019160122.GC55255@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20041019023713.GA1072@green.homeunix.org> <16757.4854.809996.993051@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20041019160122.GC55255@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 12:01 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:26AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: > > Brian Fundakowski Feldman writes: > > > You should never not run with WITNESS_SKIPSPIN if you use > > > modules. Any spin mutexes not listed statically in the witness > > > code will cause your machine to immediately panic. > > > > If this is true (and I'm not disputing it), shouldn't it be > > noted in GENERIC and/or NOTES? For that matter, what's the penalty > > for not automatically including it as part of WITNESS? > > Sometimes you don't want to use it, e.g. if you actually want to trace > spinlock operations with witness. True spin mutexes should be rarely used anyways, so I don't think modules needing spin mutexes is all that big of an issue. Almost all mutexes should just be regular mutexes. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410191650.28544.jhb>