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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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/ > > - 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. -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do!home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?76A806B1-6D12-46DD-BC9D-F3CBDC587330>