Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:59:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>, Tor.Egge@cvsup.no.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in wakeup() (stable and current) ? Message-ID: <200206232359.g5NNxwW0080270@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200206232014.g5NKE5x3058562@apollo.backplane.com> <20020623201933.GM53232@elvis.mu.org> <200206232032.g5NKWVZW063483@apollo.backplane.com> <20020623234714.GN53232@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: :You're right, but other than await() why would a process find itself :on a sleep queue if not in SSLEEP? : :-- :-Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] I think we may be ok on -stable, but -current definitely hits the case (at least it does with Julian's KSE branch). Threads have considerably more blocking states in -current then processes do in -stable. Either that or there are races in -current that we don't know about. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206232359.g5NNxwW0080270>