Fix also in stdext and stdext3

In D56022#1281980, @kib wrote:

No. Perhaps it is simpler to show code than to try to explain it, See D56053.

The example you provided would not work with my patch, it requires increasing the CXA_DTORS_ITERATIONS. Not sure if we want this.

In D56022#1281611, @kib wrote:

I am on edge of proposing to count the number of the list members, and still do the walk_cb_nocall if the number of members does not go to zero after e.g. CXA_DTORS_ITERATIONS times initial list length for dtor removals.

Do you mean something like

Also remove the define

Rename macro

In D55893#1280330, @markj wrote:

BTW, is it possible to create a test case for commit 9d26b82826d9?

Yes, I think we can have some tests for this. But I think we should do it after re-org the tests. At least for now we can rely on the llvm testcase as I run it biweekly with latest CURRENT.

Style and commit msg fix

Return void

Skip the again test

In D55893#1278882, @kib wrote:

In D55893#1278868, @aokblast wrote:

In D55893#1278865, @kib wrote:

No, I mean to keep this test, adjusted.
Create a global static var that is incremented on each again() call, and do not call __cxa_thread_atexit() if the counter greater than some value.
As an additional check, you might assert that the counter indeed counted to the specified value.

In D55893#1278865, @kib wrote:

No, I mean to keep this test, adjusted.
Create a global static var that is incremented on each again() call, and do not call __cxa_thread_atexit() if the counter greater than some value.
As an additional check, you might assert that the counter indeed counted to the specified value.

What about the nothr case? Since there is only one main thread. The dtos will be called after the ATF_TEST_CASE_BODY, which means we are unable to use assert since the main thread is destroyed.

I think that this is the right concern, and the right answer would be to significantly reorg the test. Since we are testing something that checks C runtime behavior outside the scope of normal execution (inside the main) for ATF, we need to create a helper program.
The test should spawn that program and check the effects of it, instead of trying to do everything inline.

In D55893#1278868, @aokblast wrote:

In D55893#1278865, @kib wrote:

No, I mean to keep this test, adjusted.
Create a global static var that is incremented on each again() call, and do not call __cxa_thread_atexit() if the counter greater than some value.
As an additional check, you might assert that the counter indeed counted to the specified value.

In D55893#1278865, @kib wrote:

No, I mean to keep this test, adjusted.
Create a global static var that is incremented on each again() call, and do not call __cxa_thread_atexit() if the counter greater than some value.
As an additional check, you might assert that the counter indeed counted to the specified value.

What about the nothr case? Since there is only one main thread. The dtos will be called after the ATF_TEST_CASE_BODY, which means we are unable to use assert since the main thread is destroyed.

Formatting

Adjust the testcase insteada of deleting the testcase.

In D55893#1278865, @kib wrote:

No, I mean to keep this test, adjusted.
Create a global static var that is incremented on each again() call, and do not call __cxa_thread_atexit() if the counter greater than some value.
As an additional check, you might assert that the counter indeed counted to the specified value.

Reference user: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/186961
Raw __elf_aux_vec usage: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux_libcdep.cpp#L72

In D55826#1278383, @kib wrote:

In D55826#1278380, @aokblast wrote:

In D55826#1278375, @siva wrote:

@aokblast this commit breaks the following tests in CI:

lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_nothr_test:cxx__thread_inf_dtors
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_inf_dtors
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_local_add_while_calling_dtors
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_local_after
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_local_before

See https://ci.freebsd.org/view/Test/job/FreeBSD-main-amd64-test/28044/testReport/.

I don't think the test actually make sense with my change.
The following code in the test makes it unables to terminate

static void                                                                                                                                        
again(void *arg)                                                                                                                                   
{                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                   
    __cxa_thread_atexit(again, arg, &output);                                                                                                      
}

This makes again(void *) called himself and create a infinite loop. In my opnion, the user of the __cxa_thread_atexit should take the responsibility on the infinite loop instead of setting the hard limit on iteration.

I just take a look at the original commit which add this test and would like to ask @kib and @dim on their opinions.

Should we remove the again function or if there is any suggestions on this?

Indeed this test is perhaps not too useful as is. Might be, it should limit the number of registrations, then it would make some reasonable checks.
I do think that your change that broke the test is right.

Also, thanks for your remind:). @siva

In D55826#1278375, @siva wrote:

@aokblast this commit breaks the following tests in CI:

lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_nothr_test:cxx__thread_inf_dtors
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_inf_dtors
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_local_add_while_calling_dtors
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_local_after
lib/libc/stdlib/cxa_thread_atexit_test:cxx__thread_local_before

See https://ci.freebsd.org/view/Test/job/FreeBSD-main-amd64-test/28044/testReport/.

Minor fixes

I think we need to refactor these stuff to dynamic array. It makes no sense to use linked_list if we only need to push and pop from the top.

Style fix

Test case in here.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/5eaf19a151296f770a1a2bd8514a76530234d933/libcxxabi/test/thread_local_destruction_order.pass.cpp

In D55687#1274390, @bapt wrote:

this one in particular I would love to get a review, this is the first time I plan with symbol version compatibility

Formatting

The test is in here, which failed originally since the time is not >= 500ms.

Emm, it fails to compile on many places. I have to take a look at this.

Minor fixes

In D52166#1273749, @kenrap_kennethraplee.com wrote:

In D52166#1273524, @aokblast wrote:

In D52166#1196957, @kenrap_kennethraplee.com wrote:

In D52166#1196949, @aokblast wrote:

Hello, I think I need to at least get a usb 3 hub to test this feature since I haven’t had any super speed device. I will take a look at the candidates hub. However, I am occupied by other stuff recently. Maybe you won’t get any feedback very soon (Maybe a months afterI promise that I will be back ASAP since I would like to finish this feature. Sorry for your inconvenience on helping me test this!

Appreciate the heads up. I'll be on standby.

Hello, I am back and I suspect that https://reviews.freebsd.org/D55289 fixes the problem.
I have rebased the patch to the HEAD.
Could you please check if it actually works?

Welcome back! 👋

And thanks for rebasing too. I upgraded my base for the updated patch and others as well.

Sadly the non-detection problem still persists...

I got question though. Is there a way to passthru with a specific ugen number of the same vendor and product IDs?

I'm using multiple of these adapters and they have the same IDs. Only the earliest ugen device gets passthru'd when I need a later one instead.

I've been out of the loop with this so I'm trying to recall what I've forgotten. 🙂

jhb@'s patch is much better.

In D52166#1196957, @kenrap_kennethraplee.com wrote:

In D52166#1196949, @aokblast wrote:

Hello, I think I need to at least get a usb 3 hub to test this feature since I haven’t had any super speed device. I will take a look at the candidates hub. However, I am occupied by other stuff recently. Maybe you won’t get any feedback very soon (Maybe a months afterI promise that I will be back ASAP since I would like to finish this feature. Sorry for your inconvenience on helping me test this!

Appreciate the heads up. I'll be on standby.

Rebase to main

Thanks for all yours review:).

Minor fixes.

Delete the base commit

In D55603#1272290, @lwhsu wrote:

Quick response:

1. also need to add to sys/modules/Makefile
2. Do you have a plan to write a short man page?

Fix indentation

Fix Makefile and use recursive lock to make witness happy

Remove debug print

Support numa node report

Fix sysctl

I did some experiment and you are right, the compiler optimize it above O1.
Also, my assumption is wrong since reminder in aarch64 actually convert into udiv + msub, which is not faster than what we previous have.
Thanks!

Cache and free acpi_cppc_ctx immediately since we only use readonly field.
Also, use roundup to prevent duplicate frequency.

Use readonly struct to reduce memory consumption