Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:42:11 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: rwlock patch for bridge Message-ID: <200602171342.13451.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060215211534.GA78376@heff.fud.org.nz> References: <20060215211534.GA78376@heff.fud.org.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 16:15, Andrew Thompson wrote: > Hi, > > > Here is a patch that changes if_bridge to use rwlock(9) rather than the > handrolled ref counting. Can I please get it reviewed to ensure I have > the changes correct. I pondered if the order of unlocking the softc > mutex and grabbing the rlock mattered but decided it didn't. > It has passed a runtime test. > > > cheers, > > Andrew Have you thought about replacing both the mutex and ref-count with the single rwlock? (Perhaps that is infeasible, but it would be somewhat pointless to just lock one lock so you can turn around and lock the next.) -- 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?200602171342.13451.jhb>