Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:52:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: {da,sa,...}open bug?
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0212091350460.25027-100000@root.org>
In-Reply-To: <20021208182706.B75509@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:23:56AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > > You are correct. Ok to commit this w/ re@ approval The other periphs > > don't use this flag. > > While writing a message to re@, I thought if we were propagating > bad style with such patches. Wouldn't it be better to set the open > flag and acquire the periph if and only if returning success? The > open flag seems to be of no use before the return from daopen(). This patch is bad since you need to move the acquire earlier, not later. By moving it to the end, you increase the window where another proc could release the periph and free it. -Nate 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0212091350460.25027-100000>