Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:23:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Blapp <mb@imp.ch> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Martin Blapp <mbr@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_proc.c Message-ID: <20060920192017.R1494@godot.imp.ch> In-Reply-To: <200609201109.13271.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200609191925.k8JJPBaH091145@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609191714.46864.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060920012110.P1494@godot.imp.ch> <200609201109.13271.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> mtx_init(&sess->s_mtx, "session", NULL, MTX_DEF); >> PROC_LOCK(p); >> p->p_flag &= ~P_CONTROLT; >> PROC_UNLOCK(p); >> PGRP_LOCK(pgrp); >> sess->s_leader = p; >> sess->s_sid = p->p_pid; >> sess->s_count = 1; >> sess->s_ttyvp = NULL; >> sess->s_ttyp = NULL; So we need GIANT too after the text 'else' ... What do you think ? > Well, I'd rather use whatever lock we end up using for t_session instead > of assuming it's going to be proctree_lock, so I'd like to leave t_session > only under Giant for now until we really know what we are doing. Ok. Should I back out tty.c rev. v. 1.258 or just going to work on the tty lock directly and replace it with whatever lock we use in CURRENT ? I'll only MFC the other part ... Martin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060920192017.R1494>