Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:53:35 GMT From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 81408 for review Message-ID: <200508031653.j73GrZjw005555@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=81408 Change 81408 by rwatson@rwatson_zoo on 2005/08/03 16:52:45 Remove stale comment about the caller needing to acquire the if_addr_mtx when walking address lists -- the in_multi macros now do this themselves. Remove stale comment to check whether we need to hold in_multi_mtx over the ip_mforward() path -- we don't, it would be a bad idea due to recursion. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/netsmp/src/sys/netinet/in_var.h#7 edit .. //depot/projects/netsmp/src/sys/netinet/ip_output.c#3 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/netsmp/src/sys/netinet/in_var.h#7 (text+ko) ==== @@ -188,8 +188,6 @@ /* * Macro for looking up the in_multi record for a given IP multicast address * on a given interface. If no matching record is found, "inm" is set null. - * - * Caller must hold IF_ADDR_LOCK(). */ #define IN_LOOKUP_MULTI(addr, ifp, inm) \ /* struct in_addr addr; */ \ ==== //depot/projects/netsmp/src/sys/netinet/ip_output.c#3 (text+ko) ==== @@ -291,10 +291,6 @@ ip->ip_src = IA_SIN(ia)->sin_addr; } - /* - * XXXRW: Should the in_multi_mtx be held over - * ip_mloopback() or ip_mforward()? - */ IN_MULTI_LOCK(); IN_LOOKUP_MULTI(ip->ip_dst, ifp, inm); if (inm != NULL &&
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508031653.j73GrZjw005555>