Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:15:49 +0000 From: "hselasky (Hans Petter Selasky)" <phabric-noreply@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: [Differential] [Commented On] D1711: Changes to the callout code to restore active semantics and also add a test-framework and test to validate thecallout code (and potentially for use by other tests). Message-ID: <6fe00fbf0b80b91c8237836569fdcee5@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-vhk6ww63dvpj6egspuyt-req@FreeBSD.org> References: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-vhk6ww63dvpj6egspuyt-req@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hselasky added a comment. Let me re-phrase if I was unclear: I see nothing preventing the callout_reset() macro from reading (c)->c_cpu lock when it is equal to CPUBLOCK while another CPU is calling callout_cpu_switch() on the same callout. Especially in the case of a migration case done by the callout_process(), because there is no common "c->c_lock" so-to-speak for the two pieces of code. REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1711 To: rrs, gnn, rwatson, lstewart, jhb, kostikbel, sbruno, imp, adrian, hselasky Cc: julian, hiren, jhb, kostikbel, emaste, delphij, neel, erj, freebsd-net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6fe00fbf0b80b91c8237836569fdcee5>