From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 16 01:07:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC4116A4F3; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:07:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.cryptography.com (li-22.members.linode.com [64.5.53.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914FA43D1D; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:07:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.0.34] (adsl-63-195-111-154.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.111.154]) by www.cryptography.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i6G17Sra016821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:07:28 -0700 Message-ID: <40F72A06.7080809@root.org> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:06:14 -0700 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040518) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein References: <20040715050225.GA87532@freefall.freebsd.org> <20040715052941.GL95729@elvis.mu.org> <200407151415.03555.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20040715212836.GT95729@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20040715212836.GT95729@elvis.mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Bosko Milekic cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c vfs_subr.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:07:30 -0000 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin [040715 11:56] wrote: >>On Thursday 15 July 2004 01:29 am, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> >>>> Also, why do you copy the proc name to the stack lower in >>>> kern_shutdown.c? Do you fear that the proc might change from >>>> under you when you're at the bottom and you can't therefore >>>> only keep a reference to the proc instead? >>> >>>Because I don't know if the proc will be there after it nukes itself. >> >>They don't nuke themselves, they just go to sleep. A quick look at the code >>would have revealed this. > > y'know what, in the context of fixing a printf I wasn't really > interested in looking that far into the scheduler. A 20 char stack > variable and a string copy at shutdown isn't such a big deal. If it > bugs you guys that much, why don't you just fix it? > > Or are you worried about getting 15 emails about how you inefficiently > printing a non-critical string like I have? :) My concern is that this is an attempt to fix something which is not broken. The proc cannot disappear there, which is what I believe jhb@ was pointing out. What is there to fix? -Nate