Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:45:06 -0700
From:      Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
To:        Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys protosw.h src/sys/kern uipc_domain.cuipc_socket2.c
Message-ID:  <4175ED52.6070508@errno.com>
In-Reply-To: <41753522.1E39FEAE@freebsd.org>
References:  <200410191513.i9JFDUbf072176@repoman.freebsd.org> <417532A2.9000901@errno.com> <41753522.1E39FEAE@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Sam Leffler wrote:
> 
>>Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>
>>>andre       2004-10-19 15:13:30 UTC
>>>
>>>  FreeBSD src repository
>>>
>>>  Modified files:
>>>    sys/sys              protosw.h
>>>    sys/kern             uipc_domain.c uipc_socket2.c
>>>  Log:
>>>  Support for dynamically loadable and unloadable protocols within existing protocol
>>>  families.
>>>
>>
>>I don't recall seeing this posted anywhere for comment.  I have some
>>concerns about this general topic and this code seems incomplete (e.g. I
>>see no locking).
> 
> 
> Locking is not needed because there are no dead moments in transitioning
> from unregistered to registered and back.  All calls to any of the protocol
> specific functions will return a valid result (even if it is only EOPNOTSUPP).
> There is no list manipulation going on.
> 
> The caller of the function is required to assure that no dangeling sockets,
> references or memory allocations are left behind after unregistering.  It's
> simply impossible to solve otherwise.  For IPDIVERT which I have converted
> this works very well (it will simply refuse to unload if a divert socket is
> open).
> 
> What remaining concerns do you have?

I went away for the day.  It seems many people have responded though not 
addressing all my concerns.  While I applaud your effort to attack this 
problem I must say I am totally disgusted by the way in which you've 
dropped this code in the tree with no review or opportunity for comment. 
  There are many decisions made here that I disagree with and from the 
subsequent commits to patchup issues it's clear your work needed some 
"soak time" before going in CVS.

	Sam



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4175ED52.6070508>