Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:26:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch> Cc: Patrick Guelat <patg@imp.ch>, "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Crash with FreeBSD 6.1 STABLE of today Message-ID: <20060623172443.H12942@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060623181014.S14714@godot.imp.ch> References: <20060621202508.S17514@godot.imp.ch> <20060621193941.Y8526@fledge.watson.org> <20060622205806.GA6542@FreeBSD.czest.pl> <20060622223630.V17514@godot.imp.ch> <1151056731.62769.2.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20060623133915.S14714@godot.imp.ch> <1151078632.62769.30.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20060623181014.S14714@godot.imp.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Martin Blapp wrote: >> As I understand it, spltty() is now a no-op. Does this mean that this code >> is now essentially running without any locks that were used to serialise >> changes to struct tty in days gone by? Or is the whole tty subsystem still >> running under Giant? > > I thought this too. Maybe Robert knows more. I appreciate your confidence in my knowledge, but in fact, I know little about the tty subsystem. I do know that the tty code does currently require Giant, but the tricky bits of a non-MPSAFE subsystem generally aren't the middle bits, but the edges where it interacts with other subsystems. It might be productive to slap GIANT_REQUIRED all over the tty code and see if the assertion fires with INVARIANTS. It would be nice if the answer were simple, but I suspect that it will be more complicated. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060623172443.H12942>