On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 03:25:56PM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:59:45PM -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
> > hi folks,
> >
> > ok, more progress. linux32 is working now and I fixed a few other bugs
> > along the way.
> >
> > the updated diff is in
> > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/p
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:
On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 06:31:59 -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
The attached diffs add a new mod_disabled member to the module_t
structure, and set the value to false in each place that a new entry is
created. (Since all of the allocations of module_t structu
Andrew Doran wrote:
> - The dup code for fork1() code makes me uncomfortable. Maybe it's
> worthwhile changing our native code so that LIDs are always allocated
> from the PID table or something along those lines? Tend to think these
> should be globally unique with the system and not just
Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>
> I propose to completely remove the concept of recursive vnode locks by
> eliminating vn_setrecurse(), vn_restorerecurse() and LK_CANRECURSE.
>
Definitely, and they should never come back.
- lockcnt = lvp->v_lock.vl_recursecnt +
- rw_write_held(
On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 06:31:59 -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> The attached diffs add a new mod_disabled member to the module_t
> structure, and set the value to false in each place that a new entry is
> created. (Since all of the allocations of module_t structures are done
> with kmem_zalloc() I
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:
I have to admit I haven't been following your work too closely, but
builtin modules are initialized either when all of them are initialized
per class or when their initialization is explicitly requested. So if
whatever uses PCIVERBOSE requests the load o
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:30:23AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > i think ucontext is more flexible because this way the kernel doesn't
> > need to know which register etc is used for tls.
The amount of code in kernel to sup
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57:49AM +0200, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> With mount_domount() the last consumer of recursive vnode locks has left.
>
> I propose to completely remove the concept of recursive vnode locks by
> eliminating vn_setrecurse(), vn_restorerecurse() and LK_CANRECURSE.
>
>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:47:54AM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 12:13:38 +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > i think having a class of builtin modules that are available during
> > autoconfig isn't a bad thing. perhaps the right answer is infact to
> > convert MODULE_CLASS_SECMOD
On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 04:58:37 -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Yeah, my initial pass at the xxxVERBOSE modules used module_load() with
> MODCTL_LOAD_FORCE flag. And it worked just fine for both built-in and
> boot-loaded modules. Then, at John Nemeth's request, I modified it all
> to use module_a
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:
I have to admit I haven't been following your work too closely, but
builtin modules are initialized either when all of them are initialized
per class or when their initialization is explicitly requested. So if
whatever uses PCIVERBOSE requests the load o
On Tue Jun 15 2010 at 17:10:55 -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Currently, built-in kernel modules are not enabled until very late in
> the system initialization process, right after we create process #1 for
> init(8). (As an exception to this, secmodel modules are enabled much
> earlier.)
>
> Unf
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:
On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 04:13:54 -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
With the current ways of secmodel register, I'd be damn careful to not
push it around. The effect is that if it's called 0 times, you have a
system which allows everything. So if your suggestion
On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 04:13:54 -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> >With the current ways of secmodel register, I'd be damn careful to not
> >push it around. The effect is that if it's called 0 times, you have a
> >system which allows everything. So if your suggestion is implemented
> >and you're testin
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:
On Wed Jun 16 2010 at 12:13:38 +1000, matthew green wrote:
i think having a class of builtin modules that are available during
autoconfig isn't a bad thing. perhaps the right answer is infact to
convert MODULE_CLASS_SECMODEL into say MODULE_CLASS_EARLY,
Thor Simon wrote:
We have a very busy system (it is a load test target) which continually
has several thousand TCP connections open and often has bursts of thousands
of nearly simultaneous connection requests. It's running a netbsd-5 branch
i386 kernel.
We have been seeing LOCKDEBUG panics. Th
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:30:23AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> i think ucontext is more flexible because this way the kernel doesn't
> need to know which register etc is used for tls.
In many cases, the kernel has to know about the private mapping because
it has to update it on context switch
With mount_domount() the last consumer of recursive vnode locks has left.
I propose to completely remove the concept of recursive vnode locks by
eliminating vn_setrecurse(), vn_restorerecurse() and LK_CANRECURSE.
A diff is attached.
Comments or objections anyone?
--
Juergen Hannken-Illjes - ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
