From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 29 13:54:28 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 40B8A37B401; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D5243F75; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:54:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3TKsPMS012502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id h3TKsKu84430; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:54:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16046.59004.58097.607102@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:54:20 -0400 (EDT) To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030429.141856.27153899.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20030429.135157.94399579.imp@bsdimp.com> <16046.56283.631906.102138@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030429.141856.27153899.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid 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 20:54:28 -0000 M. Warner Losh writes: > > 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. > Brain fart on my part. Sorry. That seems fine. Drew