Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:05:43 +0300
From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: {da,sa,...}open bug?
Message-ID: <20021125170543.A30909@comp.chem.msu.su>
In-Reply-To: <20021125230811.K56791-100000@gamplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:28:31PM %2B1100
References: <20021125134302.D14452@comp.chem.msu.su> <20021125230811.K56791-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:28:31PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > While preparing the fix, I noticed an additional couple of oddities. > > First, files under sys/cam/scsi are inconsistent as to the order of > > calling cam_periph_release() and cam_periph_unlock(): Some of them > > will call cam_periph_release() first, and the others will call it second. > > Then, there's a number of places in the code where cam_periph_unlock() > > won't be called before return on a cam_periph_acquire() error, though > > the "periph" has been locked. > > I'd like this fixed too. I still have some patches written about 4 > years ago for a couple of these reversals. I think things should be > unlocked or released in the reverse of the order in which they were > locked or acquired, if possible. I think so, too. If you feel it's OK to push this into 5.0-RELEASE, I'll submit a patch here for review. -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-scsi" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021125170543.A30909>