From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 11 23:22:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAA516A4CE for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:22:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3408D43D48 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:22:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [66.127.85.89] ([66.127.85.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j2BNMgms074798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:22:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <42322875.4030404@errno.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:23:33 -0800 From: Sam Leffler Organization: Errno Consulting User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek References: <20050311110234.GA87255@cell.sick.ru> <20050311141450.GF9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <20050311142805.GB88801@cell.sick.ru> <42320A3E.1020708@elischer.org> <20050311213544.GH9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> In-Reply-To: <20050311213544.GH9291@darkness.comp.waw.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> cc: John Baldwin cc: Luigi Rizzo cc: rwatson@freebsd.org cc: Julian Elischer cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Giant-free polling [PATCH] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:22:46 -0000 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > +> >P> There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of > +> >P> using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have > +> >P> access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields. > +> > > +> > > +> > +> you need to add an interface method that has access to it.. > > I was thinking more about moving interface mutex into ifnet structure, > but Robert has some objections IIRC. > I don't know what Robert's objections are but I've considered doing it for a while to deal with some locking issues in net80211-based drivers. The only issue I can see is if this mutex boxes drivers into a locking model that interlocks the rx+tx paths. Sam