Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:10:12 +1300 From: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rwlock patch for bridge Message-ID: <20060219041012.GB78376@heff.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <200602171342.13451.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20060215211534.GA78376@heff.fud.org.nz> <200602171342.13451.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 01:42:11PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 15 February 2006 16:15, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > > Here is a patch that changes if_bridge to use rwlock(9) rather than the > > handrolled ref counting. Can I please get it reviewed to ensure I have > > the changes correct. I pondered if the order of unlocking the softc > > mutex and grabbing the rlock mattered but decided it didn't. > > Have you thought about replacing both the mutex and ref-count with the single > rwlock? (Perhaps that is infeasible, but it would be somewhat pointless to > just lock one lock so you can turn around and lock the next.) The bridge code makes use of callout_init_mtx(), can a rwlock be passed instead of a mutex? cheers, Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060219041012.GB78376>