Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:40:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_pcb.c tcp_subr.c tcp_timer.c tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20060912123917.U83151@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060912002456.I43498@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200609061356.k86DuZ0w016069@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060906091204.B6691@odysseus.silby.com> <20060906143204.GQ40020@FreeBSD.org> <20060906093553.L6691@odysseus.silby.com> <20060906150506.GA7069@rambler-co.ru> <20060911005435.A23530@odysseus.silby.com> <20060911142703.GF27667@FreeBSD.org> <20060912001916.S43498@odysseus.silby.com> <20060912002456.I43498@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> >>> The UMA zone can't be made smaller than it is, while IP port ranges can >>> vary in both directions. >> >> Hm, it can't be made smaller because we're using UMA_ZONE_NOFREE... why are >> we using that? Shouldn't locking handle that, rwatson? :) > > Hm, it's been UMA_ZONE_NOFREE since day one. The reason may or may not be > relevant after all the work rwatson has done with locking. Unless the monitoring model is changed, this remains 100% necessary, or we may find ourselves performing mutex operations on uninitialized mutexes, corrupting kernel memory, or exporting other kernel data structures improperly to user space. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060912123917.U83151>