From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 28 19:53:07 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 84CA937B401; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 91D8443FD7; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3T2r5A7085576;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:53:06 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:53:01 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20030428.205301.112263174.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: hsu@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <0HE200DATX6MIM@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
References: <imp@bsdimp.com>
	<0HE200DATX6MIM@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
cc: jhb@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: panic: sleeping thread owns a mutex
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 02:53:07 -0000

In message: <0HE200DATX6MIM@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net>
            Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: Now, what about the race between the WI_UNLOCK() and the mtx_destroy() in
: wi_detach() and any other WI_LOCK(), say in wi_start()?

Nothing that I can see.  Maybe we need to take out the if lock before
taking out the wi_lock and require that the if_detach interface be
locked...  But I haven't thought about it too much so there's likely
issues with it.

Warner