Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:32:37 -0800 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, sam@freebsd.org Cc: perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 41566 for review Message-ID: <200311061032.37691.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <20031106.012601.39876884.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200311060513.hA65Da5J091575@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031106.012601.39876884.imp@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thursday 06 November 2003 12:26 am, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200311060513.hA65Da5J091575@repoman.freebsd.org> > > Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org> writes: > : diff reduction against head > : - SIS_UNLOCK(sc); > : (*ifp->if_input)(ifp, m); > : - SIS_LOCK(sc); > > does this mean that we can call if_input with our locks held? sis's lock is setup MTX_RECURSE in which case re-entry is handled. You only need to release the lock when you may be re-entered and it's not setup as recursive. I think recursive locks are bad but so long as the driver is setup to use them I'm not releasing them when calling up. Samhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311061032.37691.sam>