Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:37:26 -0500
From:      Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com>
To:        Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>, Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Penta Upa <bsdboot@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: vm_page_t related KBI [Was: Re: panic at vm_page_wire with FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 3]
Message-ID:  <CACqU3MXNLWKgYRn%2BU6-MnyguVimWC3Mir17BfdD-8WHX6uBLKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACqU3MXJdh9T14vGHi_xENtLMJ8i=nQRNZ_5CVL_jyaPJS_wog@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <alpine.GSO.1.10.1111020203230.882@multics.mit.edu> <4EB11C32.80106@FreeBSD.org> <4EB22938.4050803@rice.edu> <20111103132437.GV50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4EB2D48E.1030102@rice.edu> <20111104100828.GG50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4EB40015.5040100@rice.edu> <20111104153004.GK50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4EB4095D.3030303@rice.edu> <20111104160339.GM50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20111105141306.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CACqU3MXH%2ByBnBPNA_FD2G_KPLifzc2h7a5=ErnO=xu_FEmg4TQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndAOmLHHybUPThjjp14zwe4re%2BL481iv4=8_TE6o2CNYyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACqU3MXJdh9T14vGHi_xENtLMJ8i=nQRNZ_5CVL_jyaPJS_wog@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> I'm unsure if this replies to your concerns because you just criticize
>> without making a real technical question in this post.
>>
> I made comments on 3 points:
> =A0- using internal implementation details of mutex(9) is broken
> =A0- LOCK_FILE/LOCK_LINE are broken (a bit of a divergence on the
> original subject :/)
> =A0- there is _no_ reason not to use inlines function for such trivial on=
eliners
>
ok, I read the original thread, now that I understand the purpose of
the patch. It would make the third comment irrelevant, but I still do
not agree about the reason of the patch.

 - ARnaud



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACqU3MXNLWKgYRn%2BU6-MnyguVimWC3Mir17BfdD-8WHX6uBLKg>