Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:57:49 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sys_pipe.c src/sys/sys pipe.h Message-ID: <XFMail.020228095749.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200202270735.g1R7ZxR71022@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27-Feb-02 Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> alfred 2002/02/26 23:35:59 PST
>
> Modified files:
> sys/kern sys_pipe.c
> sys/sys pipe.h
> Log:
> First rev at making pipe(2) pipe's MPsafe.
>
> Both ends of the pipe share a pool_mutex, this makes allocation
> and deadlock avoidance easy.
>
> Remove some un-needed FILE_LOCK ops while I'm here.
>
> There are some issues wrt to select and the f{s,g}etown code that
> we'll have to deal with, I think we may also need to move the calls
> to vfs_timestamp outside of the sections covered by PIPE_LOCK.
Looks good, but I have the following questions:
- Why isn't the pipe lock dropped around pipe_destroy_write_buffer() in
pipe_clone_write_buffer() and the second call in pipe_direct_write() like
it is in the first call in pipe_direct_write().
- Does pipe_stat() need a lock for any of the fields it reads?
- Can you document some locking notes for struct pipe in pipe.h similar to
proc.h?
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020228095749.jhb>