Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:35:34 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, green@unixhelp.org Subject: Re: one SysV bug/fix, how many more Message-ID: <199902211135.WAA02068@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>parts of proc (p_vmspace etc.) For that matter, does any of kern_exit.c:exit1() >need to be spl()d? It sure seems like it to me. Along with other parts of >kern_exit.c, and many other things having to do with refcnt's. Is it just my >paranoia, or have I got this spl concept correct? spl is for blocking interrupts. Process-related things shouldn't be and mostly aren't touched by interrupts. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902211135.WAA02068>