Matthew Jacob wrote: > >> Err, I don't think _mtx_lock_sleep() is guarded in that fashion? I >> have an >> old patch to do that but have never committed it. If we want that we >> should >> probably change rwlocks and sxlocks to have also not block when >> panicstr is >> set. > > Seems to me you are backing into interesting territory here- getting a > bit more like Solaris. > > If you *do* do this, then you really *do* need to stop all other CPUs > when you panic, or else it's likely you'll double panic more often than > not.
May be it is not so bad idea to get more coherent memory snapshot? -- Alexander Motin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
