From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun 22 16:58:55 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E6D37B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jchurch.neville-neil.com (jchurch.neville-neil.com
	[209.157.133.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8540043F75
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com)
Received: from jchurch.neville-neil.com.neville-neil.com (localhost
	[127.0.0.1])h5MNwsjb004234
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:58:54 -0700
Message-ID: <87el1lr7ep.wl@jchurch.neville-neil.com.neville-neil.com>
From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.0 (Venus) SEMI/1.14.4 (Hosorogi) FLIM/1.14.4
 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Kashiharajing=FE-mae?=) APEL/10.4 Emacs/21.2
 (i386--freebsd) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Fine grained locking at the socket level?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 23:58:55 -0000

Hi,

	It would seem that splnet() and frieds now simply return 0,
	which I figure is part of making the code look like it used
	to.  What I'm wondering is why the Giant lock is still used in
	the socket layer?  I thought sockets had had fine grained
	locking applied to them.  Am I confused?  I'm looking at the
	bits du jour (-CURRENT).

Thanks,
George