From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 22 15:23:35 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FA0106566C; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:23:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emaste@freebsd.org) Received: from mail2.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B058FC1E; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com ([192.168.3.11]) by mail2.sandvine.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:23:31 -0400 Received: by labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (Postfix, from userid 10332) id 5AC9B1164E; Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:23:34 -0400 From: Ed Maste To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20100322152334.GA24534@sandvine.com> References: <201003221152.o2MBqs9M012769@svn.freebsd.org> <201003220849.36246.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003220849.36246.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2010 15:23:31.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[A19290E0:01CAC9D3] Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Ed Maste Subject: Re: svn commit: r205444 - head/sys/i386/i386 X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:23:35 -0000 On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 08:49:36AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 22 March 2010 7:52:54 am Ed Maste wrote: > > Author: emaste > > Date: Mon Mar 22 11:52:53 2010 > > New Revision: 205444 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205444 > > > > Log: > > Merge r197455 from amd64: > > > > Add a backtrace to the "fpudna in kernel mode!" case, to help track down > > where this comes from. > > > > Reviewed by: bde > > Should we make this a panic instead perhaps? I was just about to follow up with a comment to that effect. We do want it to become a panic, but I would prefer to hold off until we address the known issue with padlock(4). http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=amd64/135014 Bruce Evans' comment in that PR is: > The printf should always have been a panic, but changing to a panic > now would be too drastic. -Ed