Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:20:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@netch.kiev.ua> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/30985: incorrect signal handling in snpread() Message-ID: <200110071820.f97IK2T01515@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/30985; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@netch.kiev.ua>
To: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>
Cc: Valentin Nechayev <netch@segfault.kiev.ua>,
FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/30985: incorrect signal handling in snpread()
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:15:36 +0300
Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 08:50:41, dima wrote about "Re: kern/30985: incorrect signal handling in snpread()":
> > - tsleep((caddr_t) snp, (PZERO + 1) | PCATCH, "snoopread"
> > , 0);
> > + error = tsleep((caddr_t) snp, (PZERO + 1) | PCATCH, "snoopread", 0);
> > + if (error == EINTR || error == ERESTART) {
> > + splx(s);
> > + return EINTR;
> > + }
>
> Why can't we just return whatever tsleep() returns, as most (all?)
> other drivers do? Like so (untested):
I am not experienced kernel hacker ;) The examples I saw in kernel code,
mostly test for ERESTART and possibly EINTR and exit from routine
in case of such codes. tsleep(9) man page (in RELENG_4_4) mentions the only
another return code allowed - EWOULDBLOCK in timeout case, but snpread()
doesn't suppose timeout. If you suppose that exit on any nonzero value
is correct, you probably are right.
> snp->snp_flags |= SNOOP_RWAIT;
> - tsleep((caddr_t)snp, (PZERO + 1) | PCATCH, "snprd", 0);
> + error = tsleep((caddr_t)snp, (PZERO + 1) | PCATCH,
> + "snprd", 0);
> + if (error != 0)
> + return (error);
> }
/netch
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110071820.f97IK2T01515>