Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:19:56 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Transitioning if_addr_lock to an rwlock Message-ID: <76A806B1-6D12-46DD-BC9D-F3CBDC587330@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201112291527.26763.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201112221130.01823.jhb@freebsd.org> <201112291527.26763.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29. Dec 2011, at 20:27 , John Baldwin wrote: > I've gone ahead with this approach. I have three separate patches = that should > implement Phase 1. All of them can be found at > http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/ >=20 > - if_addr_dev.patch This fixes a few new device drivers that were = using > the locking macros directly rather than the = wrapper > functions Robert added. I've already sent = this > directly to the relevant driver maintainers = for their > review. > - if_addr_macros.patch This adds new locking macros to support read = locks vs > write locks. However, they all still map to = mutex > operations. The first two look good. I wondered why you didn't need the = r-wraper-functions but obviously they had been named like that already:) I'll look at the one below in more detail and get back to you. > - if_addr_uses.patch This changes callers of the existing macros = to use > either read or write locks. This is the patch = that > could use the most review. --=20 Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?76A806B1-6D12-46DD-BC9D-F3CBDC587330>