From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Feb 21  3:36:52 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED8B111E8
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:36:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA02068;
	Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:35:34 +1100
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:35:34 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199902211135.WAA02068@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, green@unixhelp.org
Subject: Re: one SysV bug/fix, how many more
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>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