Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:38:29 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, <smp@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: suser() API change patch Message-ID: <20020330192622.X630-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020329225016.73912E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Robert Watson wrote: > How about we follow the path of least resistance. Move to: > > int suser(td); > int suser_cred(cred, flags); > > with KASSERT()'s, and then hold a more sustained discussion of whether > using curthread is a good idea or not. That way John can get his proc > locking stuff in faster. Changing the API later in the manner described > (curthread rather than explicit argument) is trivial enough, and not worth > holding up the rest, especially given the semantics are likely to be > effectively identical (other than use of stack vs. per-thread). I agree with this. I wouldn't remove td args without first adding lots of KASSERTS to show that td is always curthread. I think initialization and finalization are the main cases where td != curthread. boot() perpetrates sync(&thread0) even for non-panic reboots when there should be no problem using curthread. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020330192622.X630-100000>