From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 12 20:09:33 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 77A3237B401; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C0ED543F3F; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3D39UA7042188;
	Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:09:31 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:08:53 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20030412.210853.23179827.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: hsu@freebsd.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <0HD7006Z9O9T0N@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
References: <20030411175926.U1137@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
	<0HD7006Z9O9T0N@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: harti@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: LOR in if_detach
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 03:09:33 -0000

In message: <0HD7006Z9O9T0N@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
            Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@freebsd.org> writes:
:   > Do you think of something like the following?
: 
:   > static int
:   > foo_detach(device_t dev)
:   > {
:   > ...
:   >
:   >	LOCK(softc);
: 
: The other big race here is between detach and the next attach.
: This is better solved with a lock at the interface layer rather
: than on the softc.

I'm working on locking at the newbus level, which should solve that
problem.  Since all changes to the dev tree are going to be under a
global lock, this race is eliminated.

My big problem is LOR when I enable this code in my tree :-(

Warner