On Wednesday 17 June 2009 6:11:42 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 June 2009 13:17:37 John Baldwin wrote:
> > These are the key frames. It looks like uipc_peeraddr() tries to lock two
> > unp locks w/o any protection from the global unp linkage lock. I've
> > changed it to use the same locki
On Wednesday 17 June 2009 6:11:42 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 June 2009 13:17:37 John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 June 2009 3:52:54 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 17 June 2009 04:15:26 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 7:01:45 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > > >
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, John Baldwin wrote:
These are the key frames. It looks like uipc_peeraddr() tries to lock two
unp locks w/o any protection from the global unp linkage lock. I've changed
it to use the same locking as uipc_accept() where it first grabs a read lock
on the linkage lock and
On Wednesday 17 June 2009 13:17:37 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 June 2009 3:52:54 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 June 2009 04:15:26 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 7:01:45 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 11:02:42 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > >
On Wednesday 17 June 2009 3:52:54 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 June 2009 04:15:26 John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 7:01:45 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 11:02:42 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 1:52:23 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > > > Hi
On Wednesday 17 June 2009 04:15:26 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 June 2009 7:01:45 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 11:02:42 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 1:52:23 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 04:19:57 John Bald
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 7:01:45 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 June 2009 11:02:42 John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 1:52:23 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 04:19:57 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Monday 15 June 2009 5:53:05 pm Mel Flynn wrot
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 11:02:42 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 June 2009 1:52:23 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 04:19:57 John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Monday 15 June 2009 5:53:05 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > > PIDTID COMM TDNAME KSTACK
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 1:52:23 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Tuesday 16 June 2009 04:19:57 John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday 15 June 2009 5:53:05 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
>
> > > PIDTID COMM TDNAME KSTACK
> > > 4283 100215 kdeinit4 -mi_swit
Hi John,
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 04:19:57 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009 5:53:05 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> > PIDTID COMM TDNAME KSTACK
> > 4283 100215 kdeinit4 -mi_switch turnstile_wait
> > _mtx_lock_sleep uipc_peeraddr kern_getpeerna
On Monday 15 June 2009 5:53:05 pm Mel Flynn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get to the bottom of a bug with getpeername() and certain kde4
> applications which is probably as low-level as the libthr and the scheduler.
>
> From browsing various related files in sys/kern it seems KTR is a good bet
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 23:53, Mel
Flynn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get to the bottom of a bug with getpeername() and certain kde4
> applications which is probably as low-level as the libthr and the scheduler.
>
> From browsing various related files in sys/kern it seems KTR is a good bet to
> g
Hi,
I'm trying to get to the bottom of a bug with getpeername() and certain kde4
applications which is probably as low-level as the libthr and the scheduler.
From browsing various related files in sys/kern it seems KTR is a good bet to
get the information needed, yet it isn't really well suppor
13 matches
Mail list logo
