From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 24 18:21:10 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838A216A418;
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:21:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D24513C469;
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:21:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42E748FC2;
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:21:09 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200707241107.43047.jhb@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20070724192023.N15979@fledge.watson.org>
References: <20070724110908.T83919@fledge.watson.org>
	<200707241107.43047.jhb@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: arch@freebsd.org, gnn@freebsd.org, bz@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.og,
	freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Removing NET_NEEDS_GIANT: first patch
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:21:10 -0000


On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, John Baldwin wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 July 2007 06:17:45 am Robert Watson wrote:
>> Patch attached, and also available at this URL:
>
> Possibly use mtx_assert() rather than KASSERT(mtx_owned()) in 
> nfs_syscalls.c?

Sounds good, I will make that change.  I picked that new structure because it 
most closely matched what was there, and what was there required a KASSERT 
because it combined a variable check with a lock check, but the new code 
doesn't require that.

Thanks,

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge