On 30-Jul-01 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <
> said:
>
>> However, the networking stack is being redone,
>
> By whom? I haven't seen anything about this posted to -net.
Err, bogon, networking stack _locking_ is being redone. (Missing keyword there)
jlemon is heading up that task atm, but I don't
>...since a lock order reversal means that you can get in a deadlock...
Argh, of course. It's only not problematic if it's a uniprocessor
and it doesn't take an interrupt at the wrong time. Sorry for being
dense, I'm still used to spl() =)
Bill
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 12:31:43PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > However, the networking stack is being redone,
>
> By whom? I haven't seen anything about this posted to -net.
I don't think John actually means "redone," just "locked down," or
"mutexified."
> -GAWoll
< said:
> However, the networking stack is being redone,
By whom? I haven't seen anything about this posted to -net.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On 27-Jul-01 Bill Fenner wrote:
>
> I'm curious what the long-term plan is for witness(4). For
> example, it complains about BPF and device locks being reversed
> when BPF takes the device out of promiscuous mode --
>
> lock order reversal
> 1st 0xc04c1560 bpf global lock @ /usr/src/sys/net/b
I'm curious what the long-term plan is for witness(4). For
example, it complains about BPF and device locks being reversed
when BPF takes the device out of promiscuous mode --
lock order reversal
1st 0xc04c1560 bpf global lock @ /usr/src/sys/net/bpf.c:365
2nd 0xc1302b88 dc1 @ /usr/src/sys/pci
