Re: Kernel panic in "subr_xcall.c"

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Jason Thorpe <thorpej%shagadelic.org@localhost> wrote:
> I like this patch, and considered this approach myself before Jean-Yves
> checked in the other one to subr_pool.c.  It has the nice effect of not
> requiring every consumer of cross-calls to be aware of the bootstrap issue.

I do not think that patch is a correct approach to the problem:

- Our CPU_INFO_FOREACH() and friends, including mp_online, etc should be
improved and better defined interface (cf. PR/41099).  With the same point,
it should be established how it behaves early, when system is cold.

- It is wrong to call function directly from xc_lowpri(), because caller
might require and assume that function will be executed in a separate thread
context.  That should be a legitimate requirement.

-- 
Mindaugas