Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:37:42 +0000 From: Doug Rabson <dfr@rabson.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Rabson <dfr@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-user@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r184851 - user/dfr/gssapi/6/sys/nfsserver Message-ID: <1D315E02-5BE7-4C34-9A51-668920C10D91@rabson.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0811111940020.63650@fledge.watson.org> References: <200811111551.mABFpjNd005723@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0811111940020.63650@fledge.watson.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 11 Nov 2008, at 19:41, Robert Watson wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Doug Rabson wrote: > >> Modified: user/dfr/gssapi/6/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvkrpc.c >> = >> = >> = >> = >> = >> = >> = >> = >> = >> ===================================================================== >> --- user/dfr/gssapi/6/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvkrpc.c Tue Nov 11 >> 14:58:07 2008 (r184850) >> +++ user/dfr/gssapi/6/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvkrpc.c Tue Nov 11 >> 15:51:45 2008 (r184851) >> @@ -227,10 +227,14 @@ nfs_rephead(int siz, struct nfsrv_descri >> if (err == EBADRPC) >> return (NULL); >> >> + /* XXXRW: not 100% clear the lock is needed here. */ >> + NFSD_LOCK_ASSERT(); >> + > > Perhaps this should now be an XXXDFR? :-) Or alternatively, if you > think the locking really is needed, we should convert my old and > questionable comment to a more firm one. The locking model in 6.x is somewhat over-complex - it holds the NFSD_LOCK while executing service procs but doesn't really need to. This causes lots of unlock/relock code where it calls things that might sleep. Its all much simpler in 7.x and current where the service procs run without holding any locks.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1D315E02-5BE7-4C34-9A51-668920C10D91>