Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:00:18 -0500 From: "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net bpf.c Message-ID: <20080527150018.GA51836@sub.vaned.net> In-Reply-To: <200805071617.57772.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200706150253.l5F2rpBV089069@repoman.freebsd.org> <200805071617.57772.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Sorry for the delay. I don't think there was a reason. I just took a look at the change and i think it should be safe to be MFCed On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:17:57PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 10:53:51 pm Christian S.J. Peron wrote: > > csjp 2007-06-15 02:53:51 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/net bpf.c > > Log: > > - Conditionally pickup Giant around the network interface > > ioctl routines if we are running with !mpsafenet > > - Change un-conditional Giant acquisition around ifpromisc > > to occur only if we are running with !mpsafenet > > > > With these locking bits in place, we can now remove the Giant > > requirement from BPF, so drop the D_NEEDGIANT device flag. > > This change removes Giant acquisitions around BPF device > > handlers (read, write, ioctl etc). > > > > MFC after: 1 month > > Discussed with: rwatson > > Would it be ok to MFC this to 6.x? (Looks like it was just never MFC'd, was > curious if a reason came up why it couldn't be MFC'd?) > > -- > John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080527150018.GA51836>