On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:47:12AM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > On Saturday 31 March 2007 11:27, Luigi Rizzo wrote: ... > See above, ipfw is working in parallel already. In addition to that, > using a ref-count would be worse! Instead of two atomic operations you'd > then have to pay for four: lock ref unlock work lock unref unlock All of > which can contentend each other. This will most likely cause more
not sure what you have in mind, but the ref() and unref() are already atomic ops. > serialization than we currently have. Again, please don't rush any > hacks! relax, nobody is rushing, we are in discussion mode! cheers luigi _______________________________________________ freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
