> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:49:43PM +, Julian Coleman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > After the change in revision 1.156 of src/sys/dev/scsipi/scsipi_base.c to
> > assert that the kernel lock is held in scsipi_lookup_periph(), my SBus-based
> > sparc64 crashed with:
> >
> > panic: kernel diagnosti
> After the change in revision 1.156 of src/sys/dev/scsipi/scsipi_base.c to
> assert that the kernel lock is held in scsipi_lookup_periph(), my SBus-based
> sparc64 crashed with:
>
> panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "KERNEL_LOCKED_P()" failed: file
> "/usr/src/sys/dev/scsipi/scsipi_base.c",
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:22:43AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > Since attach is usually called when the system is cold, there are no
> > other CPUs running so the system is effectively in KERNEL_LOCK().
> >
> > Rather than fix the driver, maybe init_main should take out KERNEL_LOCK()
> > until
matt@ wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:44:54PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:39:08PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >>> if ncr53c9x is not MP-safe, it should be running under the KERNEL_LOCK
> >>> itself, and
On Mar 9, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:44:54PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:39:08PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>>> if ncr53c9x is not MP-safe, it should be running under the KERNEL_LOCK
>>> itself, and so should not need to ta
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:44:54PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:39:08PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > if ncr53c9x is not MP-safe, it should be running under the KERNEL_LOCK
> > itself, and so should not need to take it before calling back in
> > scsipi.
>
> Where is
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:39:08PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> if ncr53c9x is not MP-safe, it should be running under the KERNEL_LOCK
> itself, and so should not need to take it before calling back in
> scsipi.
Where is that dealt with? I.e. where is the lock taken before the attach
function is
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:17:42PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > assuming ncr53c9x is MP-safe, it is correct.
>
> Just out of curiosity: assuming it isn't, what would be different?
if ncr53c9x is not MP-safe, it should be runnin
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:17:42PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> assuming ncr53c9x is MP-safe, it is correct.
Just out of curiosity: assuming it isn't, what would be different?
Martin
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:49:43PM +, Julian Coleman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After the change in revision 1.156 of src/sys/dev/scsipi/scsipi_base.c to
> assert that the kernel lock is held in scsipi_lookup_periph(), my SBus-based
> sparc64 crashed with:
>
> panic: kernel diagnostic assertion "KERN
10 matches
Mail list logo
