On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:49:01PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> I'd like to commit this. I've received positive reports from a few
> amd64 users and an i386 and softraid user, and all of the locking bugs
> exposed so far have already been fixed.
>
> I plan to remove the "#define panic()" hacks
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:49:01PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> I'd like to commit this. I've received positive reports from a few
> amd64 users and an i386 and softraid user, and all of the locking bugs
> exposed so far have already been fixed.
It's already exposed bugs in limited testing, so
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:49:01PM -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> I'd like to commit this. I've received positive reports from a few
> amd64 users and an i386 and softraid user, and all of the locking bugs
> exposed so far have already been fixed.
>
> I plan to remove the "#define panic()" hacks
I'd like to commit this. I've received positive reports from a few
amd64 users and an i386 and softraid user, and all of the locking bugs
exposed so far have already been fixed.
I plan to remove the "#define panic()" hacks and let future locking
problems actually panic; if anyone thinks they shou
Testers with Intel graphics will probably also be interested in the
diff below.
Index: i915_drv.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/pci/drm/i915_drv.c,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -u -p -r1.93 i915_drv.c
--- i915_drv.c 6 Sep 2010 15
I'd really appreciate if people could test the diffs below and report
back to me. This adds some warnings about lock API misuse that has
already caught two bugs in DRM. Eventually, I want these to be panics
instead, but using just warnings for now should make it easier for
people to test.
Please
