Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:50:38 +0000 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r325841 - in head/sys: conf dev/mlx4 dev/mlx4/mlx4_core dev/mlx4/mlx4_en dev/mlx4/mlx4_ib modules/mlx4 Message-ID: <010001606bd2655b-88495d69-fea4-4969-97f0-62fccf339ca3-000000@email.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <6d9cacd6-0f98-54e0-86be-6f202f509b17@selasky.org> References: <201711151114.vAFBEeUb015030@repo.freebsd.org> <0100016067e203d1-fa769584-f8a1-44f2-ac39-1572e8fff087-000000@email.amazonses.com> <6d9cacd6-0f98-54e0-86be-6f202f509b17@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/18/17 00:15, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 12/18/17 05:29, Colin Percival wrote: >> Also, it breaks some work I have in progress for instrumenting SYSINITs. >> Would you mind moving the DEFINE_MUTEX line to occur immediately prior to >> the set_port_type function, rather than being placed inside it? > > I'll have a look at this later today. Your point is valid! On further examination, it looks like DEFINE_MUTEX is something used in Linux kernel code, and the way it works there does allow it to be used inside a function. Is it possible to change the linuxkpi code to make it safe? (It looks like our mutex initialization is considerably more complicated than what Linux does, so maybe not...?) I have a feeling that we probably don't want to end up in a position of "every time we import code from Linux, we need to grep for DEFINE_MUTEX and hoist all of them out of functions". -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?010001606bd2655b-88495d69-fea4-4969-97f0-62fccf339ca3-000000>