Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:22:43 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <marcelm@juniper.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Old LOR between devfs & devfsmount resurfacing? Message-ID: <20080213202243.GX57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <200802131138.27471.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <B269B28B-C66E-4AC6-A4D9-FBA378466F89@juniper.net> <20080207125252.GC57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <3bbf2fe10802070611v6c7714b5y18bef10d586944c4@mail.gmail.com> <200802131138.27471.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--JnIIZV93fkunJ0kw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:38:27AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 07 February 2008 09:11:46 am Attilio Rao wrote: > > 2008/2/7, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: > > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > > > > 2008/2/7, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: > > > > > This LOR shall not be ignored globally. When real, it caused the= =20 > easily > > > > > reproducable lockup of the machine. > > > > > > > > > > It would be better to introduce some lockmgr flag to ignore _thi= s_=20 > locking. > > > > > > > > flag to pass where? > > > To the lockmgr itself at the point of aquisition, like > > > lockmgr(&lk, LK_EXCLUSIVE | LK_INTERLOCK | LK_NOWARN,=20 > &interlk, ...); > >=20 > > No, I really want a general WITNESS support for this (as I also think > > that having something more fine grained than BLESSING will break all > > concerns jhb and me are considering now). > > A simple way to do it would mean hard-coding file and line in a > > witness table. While file is ok, line makes trouble so we should find > > an alternative way to do this. Otherwise we can consider skiping > > checks for a whole function, this should be not so difficult to > > achive. > >=20 > > I need to think more about this. >=20 > I think allowing a flag is fine, just as you can specify MTX_QUIET to qui= et=20 > KTR logs in specific mtx_lock() instances. You would specify LK_NOWITNES= S or=20 > some such and have it not do a witness_checkorder() in that case. Exactly what I wanted. --JnIIZV93fkunJ0kw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkezUZMACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4gd5ACfQL4XbdCmfgleU8dnJOtuAu4x MAwAmwZqoXUMU7uwTMe1hkE4oEBcxvh5 =zP3L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JnIIZV93fkunJ0kw--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080213202243.GX57756>