Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:23:33 -0800 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Giant-free polling [PATCH] Message-ID: <42322875.4030404@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <20050311213544.GH9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> References: <20050311110234.GA87255@cell.sick.ru> <E1D9kbt-000FAj-00._pppp-mail-ru@f22.mail.ru> <20050311141450.GF9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20050311142805.GB88801@cell.sick.ru> <42320A3E.1020708@elischer.org> <20050311213544.GH9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > +> >P> There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of > +> >P> using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have > +> >P> access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields. > +> > > +> > > +> > +> you need to add an interface method that has access to it.. > > I was thinking more about moving interface mutex into ifnet structure, > but Robert has some objections IIRC. > I don't know what Robert's objections are but I've considered doing it for a while to deal with some locking issues in net80211-based drivers. The only issue I can see is if this mutex boxes drivers into a locking model that interlocks the rx+tx paths. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42322875.4030404>