Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:25:33 +0100 From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c Message-ID: <20030213082533.GA37720@gvr.gvr.org> In-Reply-To: <0HA700J3HMX8MM@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> References: <20030212130057.GA27427@gvr.gvr.org> <0HA700J3HMX8MM@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:20:31AM -0800, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: > > > Properly document that syncache timer processing requires an > > > exclusive TCP protocol lock. > > > > This seems like a strange way of telling us you need a write-lock instead > > of a read lock... > > > > -Guido > > A write lock is an exclusive lock. (A read lock is a shared lock.) > Since INP_INFO_RLOCK() and INP_INFO_WLOCK() are both currently > defined to be the same mutex lock, this commit doesn't change anything > other than documenting for future reference when shared access can occur > and when exclusive access is required. Argh..I misread TCP protocol lock as TCP protocol hack..pfff. -Guido 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?20030213082533.GA37720>