Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 23:42:26 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFR: fifo_open()/fifo_close() patch Message-ID: <20030516233858.U12541@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200305161243.h4GChJM7058171@gw.catspoiler.org> References: <200305161243.h4GChJM7058171@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
> There are a few problems in the fifo_open() and fifo_close()
> implementations.
> ...
> This patch makes the following changes:
>
> Create fifo_inactive() and free the fifo data structures there
> instead of in fifo_close() to eliminate the need for fifo_open()
> call fifo_close() in some of the failure cases. This also
> eliminates the need for the vrefcnt() call in fifo_close().
>
> Protect fip->fi_{readers,writers} with the vnode interlock in both
> fifo_open() and fifo_close().
>
> Convert from tsleep() to msleep() using the vnode interlock to
> eliminate the race condition.
Why not just lock the vnode in fifo_close()? RELENG[2-4] seems to have
the same bug. I cannot be fixed there using the vnode interlock.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030516233858.U12541>