On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Attilio Rao <atti...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone <ryst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao <atti...@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. Einstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
