Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:25:59 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> Cc: alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: on the same note.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211101125460.60718-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <3DCEAB0C.F2898200@imimic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Err, well, this *is* in vm object allocation... On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Alan L. Cox wrote: > Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > .... > > > > In vm_object.c you or somebody had a question about atomicity in bumping > > the object generation count. What is wrong with just making that > > atomic_add_int for now? I see no locks otherwise covering it. > > It and the other vm_object fields are generally covered by Giant. I > believe that vm_object allocation and initialization are the only > activities that aren't. > > Alan > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211101125460.60718-100000>