Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:00:59 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r326218 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <14058479.lc6xlYgyBM@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <3fc45d5f-22b9-0562-278b-c515e36f48e7@freebsd.org> References: <201711252341.vAPNf5Qx001464@repo.freebsd.org> <14322447.103fKFTi3y@ralph.baldwin.cx> <3fc45d5f-22b9-0562-278b-c515e36f48e7@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, November 27, 2017 02:04:59 PM Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > Unfortunately, it's unfixable on ppc64. Apologies for breaking dtrace! > Would you like me to remove the KASSERT() here? I'm happy to do that in > a few hours (unless you beat me to it first) -- although I do think that > explicitly checking for CPU_ABSENT is a much better behavior in client > code than checking the return value of pcpu_find(). It sounds like the dtrace change is actually fine as-is. At the very least fix the style of the kassert for now I guess. In general though I think our kernel basically depends on NULL faulting and in the past I recall Bruce has usually advocated for depending on the page fault from NULL rather than adding explicit assertions just for 'foo != NULL'. >From some discussion on IRC after this e-mail though it seems that NULL might not be entirely unfixable on powerpc64? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14058479.lc6xlYgyBM>