Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:22:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Stefan Bethke <stb@hanse.de> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? [was: Huge Bug not fixed?] Message-ID: <199808252122.RAA03172@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980825211818.25049A-100000@transit.hanse.de> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980814023617.9883A-300000@transit.hanse.de> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980825211818.25049A-100000@transit.hanse.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Please watch followups!] <<On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 21:25:12 +0200 (CEST), Stefan Bethke <stb@hanse.de> said: > What are the expected semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? I would suggest > that by specifing M_WAIT, the caller wants to sleep until a mbuf becomes > available, as it is already the case if the vm map must be extended. It should sleep, but actually doing so while avoiding deadlocks is problematic. Since the mbuf allocator as currently formulated is going away, callers to mget should expect that the allocation might fail, but that M_WAIT makes it ``try harder'' as it were. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808252122.RAA03172>