From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 26 02:39:12 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F81C106574B for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:39:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rysto32@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A918FC1C for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyg7 with SMTP id 7so73578eyg.13 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:39:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0q/5E6xqFXURU3EAkcgB310443GDv7N4uzgslz8Yfe0=; b=TOmfbOWFFfM6rb1TR9gihAoWc11DtlFznLsBUH7zxWDRTMThaTgrUMK3gwEKEW1JXr +yMIQVTjHnSXuyxO8BBzlFv4/l3Syxx9O5DNocSs0BHnH6ORC1jw1Gd1pmn6YWPRG8ya QsqXPDyA/OBSHjO8nEPoY2xOBr+u/y4wjHeUU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eOoPx8GV57M8jo39N3mR+4J0xw6aHVCwT7KpKl4fBYvkK2EIRKTrURgPVd3rOXftXF hicm3MwZ2jGDUSIXnYYDp8zunrVedI6pkAcKc43yMzVmu0/IKZye/FMMp2eRlI9BLoL/ vqJhSQEmfmsoBeS+xSwU6SWTwao8KHEeAh+rI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.29.73 with SMTP id p9mr1376185ebc.149.1303783792504; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.35.70 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:09:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7DC6C171-3802-4B5D-B2D8-2191C6FF6DBA@neville-neil.com> References: <7DC6C171-3802-4B5D-B2D8-2191C6FF6DBA@neville-neil.com> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:09:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ryan Stone To: George Neville-Neil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is there any reason not to remove all the spl() calls in rtsock.c? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:39:12 -0000 On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:59 PM, George Neville-Neil 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.