From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 29 13:19:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F118C37B404; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9BC43F85; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:19:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3TKJ3A7091926; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:19:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:18:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20030429.141856.27153899.imp@bsdimp.com> To: gallatin@cs.duke.edu From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <16046.56283.631906.102138@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <20030429.135157.94399579.imp@bsdimp.com> <16046.56283.631906.102138@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: jhb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:19:08 -0000 In message: <16046.56283.631906.102138@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Andrew Gallatin writes: : : M. Warner Losh writes: : > : > Comments? : : Mostly OK by me, except for the // style comments. I added those at the last second, and they are already out of my tree. They are bogus, of course. : Also, I'm not sure that checking for mutex_owned in the ioctl function : is right. Picture ifconfig'ing an interface down (or starting : tcpdump) while you're undergoing a DOS attach. Can you check for : suspened instead? All that mtx_owned does is say 'does the current thread own this lock'. How does the DOS scenario relate to this? In that case, the current thread wouldn't own the lock (although another might) and would eventually acquire it to do the tcpdump/ioctl. I don't object to checking suspend, but I'm curious as why you think that mtx_owned might present a probelm. : I'd still like to wrangle a generic, safe way of detaching interfaces : out of John though ;) I would too. That work kinda dove-tails into the newbus locking I'm working on. Warner