Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:24:24 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_descrip.c Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040116182253.81408I-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpsmifr0ln.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > I don't see a reason "newfdp" needs to be locked, since it is not > > referenced by anything yet. If "fdp" alone is locked, that is > > sufficient to ensure they will both be consistent. >=20 > It needs to be locked because it is passed to functions which assert > that it is locked.=20 It sounds like this is an API problem, and is probably what we should fix.= =20 I've found WITNESS an invaluable debugging tool for locking, and when programming on systems without it, it's a very painful experience (i.e., debugging lock orders on Darwin). You've also pointed out that the extra locking work being done is actually unnecessary, so maybe we just need an _unlocked() version of the API, or changes elsewhere?=20 Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040116182253.81408I-100000>