From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 16 20:20:47 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 3DE0837B401; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 74DA443FD7; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08666;
	Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:20:42 +1000
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:20:42 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030416161124.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030417131012.D2575@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <XFMail.20030416161124.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za>
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@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: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:20:47 -0000

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, John Baldwin wrote:

> On 16-Apr-2003 John Hay wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 02:06:25PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Ok, should I put them all back? Or just the ones being used as
> > interrupt disablers? And what about the places where there
> > should have been splx()es but weren't?
>
> I would put back any spl's covering things not covered by the
> locks you added. :)  Adding in missing spl's is not necessarily
> required, so doing or not doing that is your choice.

I think it should be rare to not need locks in much the same places
than there were spl's.  Anything else would tend to give even coarser
locking than that provided by spls.  I found it instructive that in
a couple of places where I had fixed spl's being held too long (across
M_WAITOK malloc()s), mutex locking had to add locks in much the same
places that I had added spl's.

Bruce