Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:57:21 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: mj@feral.com Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How is supposed to be protected the units list? Message-ID: <3bbf2fe11003031357o518d6028m8157d9110a9122f3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B8EDAE8.3080401@feral.com> References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe11003020724m14bebf74y9fa3906418b7cf11@mail.gmail.com> <4B8D3016.2070301@feral.com> <3bbf2fe11003031334g4591c1a3lc52dfb898f728ee2@mail.gmail.com> <20100303214424.GA53790@sandvine.com> <3bbf2fe11003031348q4c1fcccfxd19da32875b43f56@mail.gmail.com> <4B8EDAE8.3080401@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/3/3 Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com>: > On static review, the only code that makes me nervous are > ata_shutdown/da_shutdown. > Those are the only places where you hold that lock across an uncertain > interval. Please note that a def mutex is already held (the cam_periph_lock), so, unless LORs I'm not thinking about, I don't expect too much surprises for that codepath. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe11003031357o518d6028m8157d9110a9122f3>