Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:09:52 -0400
From:      Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
To:        George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Is there any reason not to remove all the spl() calls in rtsock.c?
Message-ID:  <BANLkTi=gpjLB_nb2StJPbqKXtEhu9Zu9YA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DC6C171-3802-4B5D-B2D8-2191C6FF6DBA@neville-neil.com>
References:  <7DC6C171-3802-4B5D-B2D8-2191C6FF6DBA@neville-neil.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:59 PM, George Neville-Neil
<gnn@neville-neil.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I was just reviewing the code in rtsock.c, specifically rts_attach(). =A0=
Is there any reason
> not to just remove the spl* calls? =A0I don't see anything obvious that n=
eeds protection
> that is not now protected by a finer grained lock.
>
> Best,
> George

The spl* calls have been no-ops for over 10 years now(since r71240),
so I certainly hope that there's nothing requiring their protection.

It's probably long-past time to kill off those stubs, I'd imagine.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTi=gpjLB_nb2StJPbqKXtEhu9Zu9YA>