On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 16/11/2012 16:42 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 15/11/2012 23:44 Attilio Rao said the following:
Do you think you can test this patch?:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/lockmgr_forcerec.patch
I will use this patch
on 16/11/2012 16:42 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 15/11/2012 23:44 Attilio Rao said the following:
Do you think you can test this patch?:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/lockmgr_forcerec.patch
I will use this patch in my tree, but I think that it is effectively already
quite
well
on 15/11/2012 23:44 Attilio Rao said the following:
Do you think you can test this patch?:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/lockmgr_forcerec.patch
I will use this patch in my tree, but I think that it is effectively already
quite
well tested by using INVARIANTS+WITNESS.
--
Andriy Gapon
To people knowing the code,
do the following documentation changes look correct?
--- a/share/man/man9/lock.9
+++ b/share/man/man9/lock.9
@@ -148,7 +148,9 @@ Flags indicating what action is to be taken.
.Bl -tag -width .Dv LK_CANRECURSE
.It Dv LK_SHARED
Acquire a shared lock.
-If an exclusive
On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
To people knowing the code,
do the following documentation changes look correct?
The latter chunk is not correct.
It will panic only if assertions are on. I was thinking that however
it would be good idea to patch lockmgr to panic also in
on 15/11/2012 20:46 Attilio Rao said the following:
On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
To people knowing the code,
do the following documentation changes look correct?
The latter chunk is not correct.
It will panic only if assertions are on.
But the current content is not
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 15/11/2012 20:46 Attilio Rao said the following:
On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
To people knowing the code,
do the following documentation changes look correct?
The latter chunk is not correct.
It
7 matches
Mail list logo