Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:25:33 +0100
From:      Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>
To:        Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c
Message-ID:  <20030213082533.GA37720@gvr.gvr.org>
In-Reply-To: <0HA700J3HMX8MM@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>
References:  <20030212130057.GA27427@gvr.gvr.org> <0HA700J3HMX8MM@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 11:20:31AM -0800, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
>   > >   Properly document that syncache timer processing requires an
>   > >   exclusive TCP protocol lock.
>   > 
>   > This seems like a strange way of telling us you need a write-lock instead
>   > of a read lock...
>   > 
>   > -Guido
> 
> A write lock is an exclusive lock.  (A read lock is a shared lock.)
> Since INP_INFO_RLOCK() and INP_INFO_WLOCK() are both currently
> defined to be the same mutex lock, this commit doesn't change anything
> other than documenting for future reference when shared access can occur
> and when exclusive access is required.

Argh..I misread TCP protocol lock as TCP protocol hack..pfff.

-Guido

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030213082533.GA37720>