Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:57:23 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: possible selrecord optimization ? Message-ID: <20140123225723.GB11319@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <201401231452.41509.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <CA%2BhQ2%2BhW4_8tkCqyUWUWR_VV%2B6Jp=t0XzVE5kaWFz=SKDd2bow@mail.gmail.com> <201401221429.56745.jhb@freebsd.org> <20140123003948.GC292@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <201401231452.41509.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:52:41PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:39:48 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote: ... > > 2. am i correct that we do need to protect concurrent invocations > > of selrecord() on the same selinfo because mtx_pool_find() > > return the same mutex for a given struct selinfo ? > > If you mean 'do not need', yes. mtx_pool_find() does a hash on the address, yes, i meant "do not need". thanks luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140123225723.GB11319>