On Monday, November 27, 2017 04:41:40 PM Mark Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:28:07AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 06:42:23 PM Mark Johnston wrote: > > > Author: markj > > > Date: Mon Nov 27 18:42:23 2017 > > > New Revision: 326286 > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/326286 > > > > > > Log: > > > Don't use pcpu_find() to determine if a CPU ID is valid. > > > > > > This addresses assertion failures after r326218. > > > > I'd perhaps rather revert the assertion as per my other mail? > > I considered waiting for a resolution of that thread, but it seems to me > that using CPU_FOREACH()/CPU_ABSENT() is more idiomatic anyway? We > already use CPU_FOREACH() in a few places in dtrace.c, and > dtrace_ioctl.c is meant to be a fork of the ioctl handler from illumos, > i.e., we shouldn't make much effort to avoid diverging from upstream.
Fair enough. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
