Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>