Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:04:27 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Sam Leffler <sam@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c Message-ID: <20031111120300.Y16061@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200311111754.hABHslNG062585@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200311111754.hABHslNG062585@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Sam Leffler wrote:
> sam 2003/11/11 09:54:47 PST
>
> FreeBSD src repository
>
> Modified files:
> sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c
> Log:
> o add missing inpcb locking in tcp_respond
> o replace spl's with lock assertions
>
> Supported by: FreeBSD Foundation
Part of this looks goofy to me:
@@ -377,14 +374,12 @@ syncache_timer(xslot)
intptr_t slot = (intptr_t)xslot;
struct syncache *sc, *nsc;
struct inpcb *inp;
- int s;
- s = splnet();
INP_INFO_WLOCK(&tcbinfo);
if (callout_pending(&tcp_syncache.tt_timerq[slot]) ||
!callout_active(&tcp_syncache.tt_timerq[slot])) {
- INP_INFO_WUNLOCK(&tcbinfo);
- splx(s);
+ /* XXX can this happen? */
+ INP_INFO_WLOCK(&tcbinfo);
return;
}
callout_deactivate(&tcp_syncache.tt_timerq[slot]);
@@ -421,8 +416,7 @@ syncache_timer(xslot)
if (nsc != NULL)
callout_reset(&tcp_syncache.tt_timerq[slot],
nsc->sc_rxttime - ticks, syncache_timer, (void
*)(slot));
- INP_INFO_WUNLOCK(&tcbinfo);
- splx(s);
+ INP_INFO_WLOCK(&tcbinfo);
}
Shouldn't those WUNLOCK calls stay as WUNLOCK?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031111120300.Y16061>