On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 11:38:27AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 07 February 2008 09:11:46 am Attilio Rao wrote: > > 2008/2/7, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>: > > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > > > > 2008/2/7, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>: > > > > > This LOR shall not be ignored globally. When real, it caused the > easily > > > > > reproducable lockup of the machine. > > > > > > > > > > It would be better to introduce some lockmgr flag to ignore _this_ > locking. > > > > > > > > flag to pass where? > > > To the lockmgr itself at the point of aquisition, like > > > lockmgr(&lk, LK_EXCLUSIVE | LK_INTERLOCK | LK_NOWARN, > &interlk, ...); > > > > No, I really want a general WITNESS support for this (as I also think > > that having something more fine grained than BLESSING will break all > > concerns jhb and me are considering now). > > A simple way to do it would mean hard-coding file and line in a > > witness table. While file is ok, line makes trouble so we should find > > an alternative way to do this. Otherwise we can consider skiping > > checks for a whole function, this should be not so difficult to > > achive. > > > > I need to think more about this. > > I think allowing a flag is fine, just as you can specify MTX_QUIET to quiet > KTR logs in specific mtx_lock() instances. You would specify LK_NOWITNESS or > some such and have it not do a witness_checkorder() in that case. Exactly what I wanted.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:27 UTC