Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:56:57 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 in6_src.c Message-ID: <200508171356.59672.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <yger7csmp6n.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <200508161949.j7GJnAaG015685@repoman.freebsd.org> <200508171318.27652.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <yger7csmp6n.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 01:46 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > Hi, > > >>>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:18:25 -0400 > >>>>> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> said: > > jhb> Thanks. I see that you still kept the mutex and and properly lock > both the sx jhb> and mutex when making updates, so it seems it is on > purpose. The one place jhb> that doesn't use the sx lock is > lookup_addrsel_policy() which is called from jhb> in6_selectsrc(). I guess > it is not ok to sleep in that function and that is jhb> why you don't use > the sx lock in that one place? > > Because, lookup_addrsel_policy() is protected by mutex lock. > add_addrsel_policyent() and delete_addrsel_policyent() do update the > tailq. Both of the two functions are also protected by mutex. So, I > tought that lookup_addrsel_policy() doesn't need sx lock. > I tried to stop using of mutex locks and used only sx locks, as learn > by mistake. It ended up with exclusive lock error between INP_LOCK. > So, I avoided to use sx lock in lookup_addrsel_policy(). > Am I something wrong? Ah, if you had a witness warning from INP_LOCK because INP_LOCK is held when in6_selectsrc() is called then you did the right thing and that answers my question. Thanks. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200508171356.59672.jhb>