Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:54:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: jhb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h Message-ID: <16046.59004.58097.607102@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20030429.141856.27153899.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <XFMail.20030429152414.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030429.135157.94399579.imp@bsdimp.com> <16046.56283.631906.102138@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030429.141856.27153899.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh writes: > > All that mtx_owned does is say 'does the current thread own this > lock'. How does the DOS scenario relate to this? In that case, the > current thread wouldn't own the lock (although another might) and > would eventually acquire it to do the tcpdump/ioctl. I don't object > to checking suspend, but I'm curious as why you think that mtx_owned > might present a probelm. > Brain fart on my part. Sorry. That seems fine. Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16046.59004.58097.607102>