Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:01:51 +0900 From: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, smp@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Locking down a socket, milestone 1 Message-ID: <200204250901.g3P91p0o027325@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <20020425083644.GM38320@elvis.mu.org> References: <200204241110.g3OB8u8t006194@bunko> <XFMail.20020424101801.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200204250819.g3P8J00o013784@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <20020425083644.GM38320@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:36:44 -0700, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> said: bright> * Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> [020425 01:19] wrote: >> >> >> >> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/socket_milestone1.diff.gz >> >> bright> Why is there a "sigio" lock in this delta? I should have stripped that out, but my patch would result in lock order reversal between a socket lock and a process lock. As we protect p_fd by a process lock, we have to lock it prior to locking a file descriptor or a socket. I suppose I have to commit the stripped patch of a sigio lock first. Speaking of the sigio lock, is that likely to apply to a pipe as well? -- Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <tanimura@FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200204250901.g3P91p0o027325>