From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  2 23:48:45 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 39B6D37B407
	for <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  2 Jun 2003 23:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACEEB43FA3
	for <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  2 Jun 2003 23:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 22049 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jun 2003 06:48:46 -0000
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 23:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: Sam Leffler <sam@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030602233211.2492D37B4A2@hub.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20030602234329.T22029@root.org>
References: <20030602233211.2492D37B4A2@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ubsec ubsec.c ubsecvar.h
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: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 06:48:45 -0000

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Sam Leffler wrote:
>   Redo locking for proper SMP operation:
>
>   o replace driver-global lock with three locks: one for the handling of mcr1
>     operations, one for handling of mcr2 operations, and one for the mcr1
>     free list
>   o mark the interrupt handler MPSAFE
>   o don't use locking on detach; disabling interrupts is sufficient (I think)

Unfortunately it's not if you're on a shared interrupt.  You need to
call bus_teardown_intr() before you are detached from the ithread.  See
the thread near this message:
  Message-ID: <1742240000.1051807110@aslan.btc.adaptec.com>

The end result, I thought, was that jhb@ was going to look into
bus_teardown_intr() to change it to install a null handler with proper
locking (intr masking?).  I hate to start this topic again but I've
brought it up a couple times and still haven't heard that this has been
addressed.

-Nate