Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:15:36 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/streams streams.csrc/sys/kernkern_descrip.csrc/sys/opencrypto cryptodev.c Message-ID: <20031020101425.H49719@pooker.samsco.home> In-Reply-To: <20031020095412.F49719@pooker.samsco.home> References: <200310200848.aa99929@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <20031020095412.F49719@pooker.samsco.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Scott Long wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, David Malone wrote: > > > > This reminds me that we still hold Giant around pipe(2) because it isn't > > > > declared MPSAFE in the syscall table. Is this still necessary? > > > > > I've been suspicious of this too, and I was hoping that you would have > > > an answer. Can we go ahead and correct this? > > > > I think we may need to check the calling of pipeclose() in pipe(), > > but as this is only done in an error case, it is probably safe enough > > to just grab Giant for that. (The mac_* calls may need to be checked > > too). > > pipeclose() seems to have some concept of locking, though I don't know > what the implications are of it saying, 'gee, the mutex on this pipe was > never initialized, so I just won't worry about locking.' Towards the > end of pipeclose() Giant is acquired, though that action is likely no > longer needed either. Nix that last part, I was looking at a stale file. pipeclose() does not explicitely grab Gaint. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031020101425.H49719>