Is this right? Passing 0 to timo causes a panic? That can't be good. Wanrer
On Nov 20, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > Author: hselasky > Date: Sun Nov 20 08:36:18 2011 > New Revision: 227749 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227749 > > Log: > Given that the typical usage of pause() is pause("zzz", hz / N), where N can > be greater than hz in some cases, simply ignore a timeout value of zero. > > Suggested by: Bruce Evans > MFC after: 1 week > > Modified: > head/sys/kern/kern_synch.c > > Modified: head/sys/kern/kern_synch.c > ============================================================================== > --- head/sys/kern/kern_synch.c Sun Nov 20 08:29:23 2011 > (r227748) > +++ head/sys/kern/kern_synch.c Sun Nov 20 08:36:18 2011 > (r227749) > @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ msleep_spin(void *ident, struct mtx *mtx > int > pause(const char *wmesg, int timo) > { > - KASSERT(timo > 0, ("pause: timo must be > 0")); > + KASSERT(timo >= 0, ("pause: timo must be >= 0")); > > /* silently convert invalid timeouts */ > if (timo < 1) > > _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
