On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone <rysto32_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld. >>> There are likely historically reasons for that, but I would like to >>> know which one are those and eventually fix them out. >>> FWIK, all the other locking primitives assume the lock is already >>> unheld when destroying and I think it would be good to have that for >>> mutexes as well. >>> >>> Can you please show which lock triggers the panic you saw? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Attilio >>> >> >> It was taskqueue_free: > > taskqueue_free() must not be called in places where there are still > races, so the lock is not really meaningful and should be acquired. Herm, I mean to say "after taskqueue_termintate() returns must not be races...". Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. EinsteinReceived on Sat Nov 24 2012 - 15:16:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC