From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 28 20:49:03 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F9916A496; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:49:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C3313C45E; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:49:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@FreeBSD.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDE92741C; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:49:02 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: HjkJZtM8It+60oqyiJgC5pHi7aI4pffpedQ8G35KFTlO 1188334142 Received: from empiric.lon.incunabulum.net (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CB923306; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46D48A3D.6080901@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:49:01 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070630) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Christian S.J. Peron" References: <20070828165333.GA14159@sub.vaned.net> In-Reply-To: <20070828165333.GA14159@sub.vaned.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [csjp@FreeBSD.org: Re: rtfree: 0xffffff00036fb1e0 has 1 refs] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:49:03 -0000 Christian S.J. Peron wrote: > I am not sure who has their hands in the routing code these days so > I figured I would just forward this message off here. Does the > following look reasonable? > I'm looking, but mostly with long range goggles on. Yes, this looks like the right change. rtalloc1() always returns an rtentry with the mutex for that rtentry held. regards BMS