On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 08:31:16PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> No reason to keep kernel lock around if_clone_list() call.
Yes, that is why I will remove it in the very next commit.
This way there is one "move existing lock, make things clearer" and one
"actually remove a lock for a specific
No reason to keep kernel lock around if_clone_list() call.
> On 8 Nov 2022, at 20:27, Klemens Nanni wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 08:04:16PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
>> The `if_cloners’ list is immutable. You don't need kernel lock
>> around if_clone_list() call.
>>
>>> case SIO
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:47:23PM +, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 08/11/22(Tue) 15:28, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > After this mechanical move, I can unlock the individual SIOCG* in there.
>
> I'd suggest grabbing the KERNEL_LOCK() after NET_LOCK_SHARED().
> Otherwise you might spin for the first
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 08:04:16PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> The `if_cloners’ list is immutable. You don't need kernel lock
> around if_clone_list() call.
>
> > case SIOCIFGCLONERS:
> > + KERNEL_LOCK();
> > error = if_clone_list((struct if_clonereq *)data);
> > +
The `if_cloners’ list is immutable. You don't need kernel lock
around if_clone_list() call.
> case SIOCIFGCLONERS:
> + KERNEL_LOCK();
> error = if_clone_list((struct if_clonereq *)data);
> + KERNEL_UNLOCK();
> return (error);
With this fi
On 08/11/22(Tue) 15:28, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> After this mechanical move, I can unlock the individual SIOCG* in there.
I'd suggest grabbing the KERNEL_LOCK() after NET_LOCK_SHARED().
Otherwise you might spin for the first one then release it when going
to sleep.
> OK?
>
> Index: if.c
>
After this mechanical move, I can unlock the individual SIOCG* in there.
OK?
Index: if.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/if.c,v
retrieving revision 1.667
diff -u -p -r1.667 if.c
--- if.c8 Nov 2022 15:20:24 - 1.667
++
