Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 19:21:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org> To: hsu@FreeBSD.org Cc: dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet udp_usrreq.c Message-ID: <200207140221.g6E2Ltwr020001@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <0GZ5004IMH36IU@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12 Jul, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: > > I've been doing some digging through the code and it looks to me like > > both the INP_LOCK() and inp->inp_socket == NULL test can be eliminated. > > The inp lock is needed for sure. I dug through the source and didn't see anything that made me believe that we need to hold this lock in the getcred code. The only assignment I saw to inp->socket is in in_pcballoc(), and this is protected ^H^H^H^H is *not* protected by the INP_INFO lock. But that's ok I guess since in_pcbremlists() isn't doing any locking either :-( > It does look like the inp->inp_socket == NULL test can be eliminated, but > I didn't want to introduce any extraneous changes with the inp locking patch, > so that change is left for a later round. > > > The inp->inp_socket == NULL check shows up in the code > > listing in _TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 2_, but there doesn't seem to be > > any need for it there. It probably slipped in to "fix" panic some time > > in the deep dark past when there were probably locking problems in the > > code. > > This is where the CSRG SCCS archive comes in real handy. That would make some interesting reading ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200207140221.g6E2Ltwr020001>