From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 20 00:48:56 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4A7EE16A4B3; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 51F9943FCB; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie)
Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP
          id <aa99929@salmon>; 20 Oct 2003 08:48:53 +0100 (BST)
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:41:11 MDT."
             <3F933D37.40906@freebsd.org> 
X-Request-Do: 
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:48:53 +0100
From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <200310200848.aa99929@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
cc: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com>
cc: src-committers@freebsd.org
cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org
cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/streams streams.c
	src/sys/kernkern_descrip.c kern_event.c sys_pipe.c
	uipc_syscalls.cvfs_syscalls.c src/sys/opencrypto cryptodev.c 
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:48:56 -0000

> > This reminds me that we still hold Giant around pipe(2) because it isn't
> > declared MPSAFE in the syscall table.  Is this still necessary?

> I've been suspicious of this too, and I was hoping that you would have
> an answer.  Can we go ahead and correct this?

I think we may need to check the calling of pipeclose() in pipe(),
but as this is only done in an error case, it is probably safe enough
to just grab Giant for that. (The mac_* calls may need to be checked
too).

> > Additionally, we declare dup2(2) to be MPSAFE, but not dup(2).  Given
> > their implementations that seems odd.

> We likely need to do a review through the syscalls and weed out problems
> like this.  Any volunteers?

I'm pretty sure dup not being marked MPSAFE is just a typo, based on the
CVS logs. I'll change it later today.

	David.