From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 16 11:35:10 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2658637B401; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 64F0943FB1; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 489B12ED417; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:35:07 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030416183507.GL18848@elvis.mu.org>
References: <200304161742.h3GHgc0l085079@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<XFMail.20030416140625.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030416140625.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: John Hay <jhay@FreeBSD.org>
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/wl if_wl.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:35:10 -0000

* John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [030416 11:06] wrote:
> 
> On 16-Apr-2003 John Hay wrote:
> > jhay        2003/04/16 10:42:38 PDT
> > 
> >   FreeBSD src repository
> > 
> >   Modified files:
> >     sys/dev/wl           if_wl.c 
> >   Log:
> >   Add locking and remove all the spl() calls.
> 
> Note that some of the spl calls covered structures other than
> just the softc.  I'd prefer that we leave spl calls in until
> all the structures they cover are locked.

John is right, leaving spls in is the right thing to do until we're
pretty much _done_ with smp locking the entire kernel.  They serve
as a good marker where there may be cross domain locking issues.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'