From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct  1 17:03:57 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4808116A4B3; Wed,  1 Oct 2003 17:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 24B4443F93; Wed,  1 Oct 2003 17:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sam@errno.com)
Received: from ip108-171.users.atheros.com (mail.atheros.com [65.212.155.130])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9203p0x084617
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO);
	Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sam@errno.com)
From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
Organization: Errno Consulting
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org,
	cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:09:42 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031001180240.16031Q-300000@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031001180240.16031Q-300000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200310011709.43024.sam@errno.com>
X-DCC-Servercave-Metrics: ebb.errno.com 1183; Body=4 Fuz1=4 Fuz2=4
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net netisr.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:03:57 -0000

On Wednesday 01 October 2003 03:13 pm, Robert Watson wrote:
> (1) Potential lock order interactions.  I believe these are OK given the
>     current model of dropping the driver lock before entering the
>     interface input routines.  However, since the ground doesn't appear to
>     be firm here quite yet...

All drivers I've looked at either drop the lock or mark it recursive so this 
should not be an issue.  If there are any LOR's then they need to be fixed.

I would like to see all instances of recursive lock usage removed but that 
typically requires significant restructuring of the driver.

	Sam