From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 11:06:00 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E78316A4CE; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F325E43F93; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:05:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2372A8FB; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:05:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mike Silbersack In-Reply-To: <20031110215128.F6320@odysseus.silby.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:05:59 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20031111190559.CB2372A8FB@canning.wemm.org> cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: sam@errno.com cc: hsu@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:06:00 -0000 Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > In message: <200311102359.hAANx2xu023566@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> > > Jeffrey Hsu writes: > > : Are you kidding me? Or do you really not understand why it's not > > : Giant-free ready yet? > > > > While it may be obvious to you, it seems that a sentence or two about > > how it isn't giant-free would be useful. > > > > Warner > > If I'm not mistaken, syncache_timer calls syncache_respond, which then > goes and interacts with the routing table and ip stack. Along with the > rest of the non-locked code, it sure looks like it's not-MPSAFE to me. > > It seems "obvious" that the code isn't giant-free, given that there are no > locking assertions in it whatsoever. Sure, but that's what the commit message should have said. eg: "Revert rev 1.40. Mark TCP syncache timer as not Giant-free ready yet. It still calls syncache_respond which interacts with the routing table and ip stack which is not locked yet." It isn't that hard. ---------------------------- revision 1.40 date: 2003/07/17 11:19:25; author: hsu; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 Drop Giant around syncache timer processing. ---------------------------- revision 1.45 date: 2003/11/10 20:42:04; author: hsu; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 Mark TCP syncache timer as not Giant-free ready yet. ---------------------------- Considering the history, an explanation in the commit log is in order. Both commit messages have plenty of conviction but there is no explanation of the contradiction. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5