Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:09:58 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, luoqi@luoqi.watermarkgroup.com Subject: Re: typo in vop_stdlock() ? Message-ID: <199803110409.PAA24737@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>int
>vop_stdlock(ap)
> struct vop_lock_args /* {
> struct vnode *a_vp;
> int a_flags;
> struct proc *a_p;
> } */ *ap;
>{
> struct lock *l;
>
> if ((l = (struct lock *)ap->a_vp->v_data) == NULL) {
> if (ap->a_flags & LK_INTERLOCK)
> simple_unlock(&ap->a_vp->v_interlock);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> return 0;
> }
>
> return (lockmgr(l, ap->a_flags, &ap->a_vp->v_interlock, ap->a_p));
>}
>
>Shouldn't simple_unlock be simple_lock instead?
No. LK_INTERLOCK means that the vnode is already simple-interlocked and
that the simple-interlock shall be released when the function returns.
The lock is normally relased in lockmgr() as part of upgrading to a
non-simple lock, but non-simple locking is impossible in the NULL v_data
case (v_data points to an inode whose first element is the non-simple
lock, except of course when the pointer is NULL). Perhaps this case
shouldn't happen.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803110409.PAA24737>