From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Dec 18 14:58: 3 2000 From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 18 14:58:00 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE4A37B400 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:57:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@localhost.bsdi.com [127.0.0.1]) by berserker.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBIMvgP24201; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:57:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200012182257.eBIMvgP24201@berserker.bsdi.com> To: Julian Elischer Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netgraph locking primatives. take 1. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:38:07 PST." <3A3E91CF.C881C4DF@elischer.org> From: Chuck Paterson Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:57:42 -0700 Sender: cp@berserker.bsdi.com Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org }Chuck Paterson wrote: }> }> Julian }> Is there some other mechanism to insure that the code }> which knows about the queue on which the packet is queued doesn't }> go away while the packet is on queued? I thought this was }> part of what was being solved, but may just not understand. }> }> Chuck } }Sorry I don;t quite understand the question.. } You talked about various nodes before, such as node X, and node Y. Presumably node X and the code that knows about it, and its queues could go away totally. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that this mechanism was going to be used to solve this problem also. }BTW BSDi is rejecting my mail to you as spam and I can't figure out why... }Just as well you are on the lists. }(it goes via my ISPs mail server, not direct from the dialup) } As far as I can tell the mail filters we (BSDi) use just suck wind. } }-- } __--_|\ Julian Elischer } / \ julian@elischer.org } ( OZ ) World tour 2000 }---> X_.---._/ presently in: Budapest } v } } Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message