Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>