From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 25 06:49:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1223316A4CE; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:49:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 886C743D1D; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:49:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by fledge.watson.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2PEkxxC053841;
	Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:46:59 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i2PEkxXX053838;
	Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:46:59 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:46:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040325143256.GA8930@darkness.comp.waw.pl>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040325094617.53816A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: in_pcbbind_setup(), etc.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:49:11 -0000


On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:

> +> How does this sound?  It would completely eliminate the issue of "er,
> +> which thread is that", which is really an unnecessary issue given that all
> +> we're interested in is the credential.
> 
> Sounds good. I can prepare patch with this in p4, but it isn't to heavy
> change from network locking branches point of view? 

If anything, it's a simplifying change, since it corrects a potential
locking/synchronization nit, and it should be easy to merge.  Please go
ahead!

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org      Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research