Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:04:58 +0100
From:      Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r246614 - head/sys/dev/usb/wlan
Message-ID:  <201302131704.58911.hselasky@c2i.net>
In-Reply-To: <201302131053.02740.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <201302101036.r1AAaHs1022034@svn.freebsd.org> <201302120843.32349.hselasky@c2i.net> <201302131053.02740.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

On Wednesday 13 February 2013 16:53:02 John Baldwin wrote:
> You shouldn't call routines that can drain like if_detach() or
> destroy_dev()  or the like while holding any mutexes period.  I think you
> need a 0) step which is "detach external consumers" including cdev's
> (destroy_dev()) and ifnet's (if_detach).  Once both of those routines have
> finished, you can then proceed with actually stopping device operation,
> and 2) is not needed as it can't happen once 0) has finished.
> 

Right.

> When a device has both an ifnet and a cdev you may need something to
> handle  the case of one part being dead but not the other.  For now you
> can call if_detach() first as it doesn't sleep (though that is a
> bug).  The real fix for this case (and things like tun(4) can need this as
> well) is to have a way to call just the non-blocking parts of things like
> if_detach() and destroy_dev() first to mark the relevant portions as dead
> and then follow those with blocking calls that do the drain.  This is all
> part of step 0 though.

I feel this is out of my area. Can you push the right people to make such a 
change in the IFNET code and I can update the USB part.

--HPS



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201302131704.58911.hselasky>