Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:48:50 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 91042 for review Message-ID: <200602061348.51792.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200602040903.k1493lFu093402@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200602040903.k1493lFu093402@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 04 February 2006 04:03, Warner Losh wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=91042 > > Change 91042 by imp@imp_plunger on 2006/02/04 09:02:46 > > Fix spelling error > Move locking to avoid nesting the locking and to give the locking a > smaller scope. You shouldn't have a LOR with the IF_ADDR_LOCK unless you have some LOR somewhere else. I used a rather simple version of locking for nic drivers where the lock was basically held for all of foo_start(), foo_init(), the ISR, etc. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200602061348.51792.jhb>