Use ${PWD}

Follow jlduran's suggestion of using atf_check -r.

Which revision removed these?

To be clear, the point is to have an explicit panic rather than a boot hang because we end up spinning in an uninitialized trap handler?

Always open /dev/pci read-write.

In D54753#1251493, @minsoochoo0122_proton.me wrote:

In D54753#1251492, @markj wrote:

In D54753#1251486, @minsoochoo0122_proton.me wrote:

This is really just an argument for moving away from C entirely. And I'd quite like that personally, but it's easier said than done.

My original implementation of minmax caching on wavl (using prev and next) always failed CI build on github,

In D54753#1251486, @minsoochoo0122_proton.me wrote:

In D54753#1251467, @markj wrote:

To be honest, I'm not thrilled to have a whole new set of functions for doing something already covered by queue.h and used extensively throughout the tree. These functions don't provide any type checking or debug assertions/poisoning like the queue.h macros do. These functions might be easier to use for someone not used to queue.h, but there are tons of examples of queue.h macro usage in the tree to draw from.

Type checking is done here and there is no need for (void *) casting. containerof() will return the structure that contains the node and other data. For assertion, we can let users to declare their own assert functions and call it in the headers, but I forgot to implement it here.

To be honest, I'm not thrilled to have a whole new set of functions for doing something already covered by queue.h and used extensively throughout the tree. These functions don't provide any type checking or debug assertions/poisoning like the queue.h macros do. These functions might be easier to use for someone not used to queue.h, but there are tons of examples of queue.h macro usage in the tree to draw from.

Drop inline qualifiers

I wonder why we bother with bogus page replacement in sendfile_swapin(). Why not pass valid pages to the pager and let it decide how to handle it?

In D54678#1250056, @emaste wrote:

Linux does seem to read these registers in a few places, but it's hard to see whether the bug is likely to cause problems.

I'm mainly hoping to have an answer if someone wonders (as I did) how it worked before if the return value is inverted from what it's supposed to be.

In D54678#1250042, @emaste wrote:

It doesn't seem so, at least in FreeBSD. The only read of these registers I found is in arm_gic_db_show().

Ah, OK. Probably worth including a note in the commit message to that effect.

In D54671#1249971, @emaste wrote:

There's the same assertion earlier in the fn for the ts allocation.

In D54678#1249963, @emaste wrote:

Does nothing actually care about the return value today?

Looks ok to me aside from the comment.

Tabs are stripped on this patch too.

In D54439#1249171, @guest-seuros wrote:

Updated the diff .

I pasted the diff in the webview.

@andrew will you MFC this? We're preparing patches for a secteam release soon and are planning on including this one.

Approved

Thank you!

In D54613#1248261, @guest-seuros wrote:

We could wrap it with a sleep mutex, but concurrent fan control from multiple threads is not a realistic scenario.