Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:26:01 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_descrip.c Message-ID: <200401162226.i0GMQ1qN015197@green.bikeshed.org> In-Reply-To: Message from des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) of "Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:57:55 %2B0100." <xzpn08nsgik.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
des@des.no (Dag-Erling =3D?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=3DF8rgrav?=3D) wrote: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > WITNESS won't let us hold two filedesc locks at the same time, so j= uggle > > fdp and newfdp around a bit. > = > The question though is, is there a real reason why we can't hold two > filedesc locks at the same time, or is WITNESS being unnecessarily > pedantic? I don't see a reason "newfdp" needs to be locked, since it is not referen= ced = by anything yet. If "fdp" alone is locked, that is sufficient to ensure = they will both be consistent. -- = Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''= ''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serv= e! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,= ,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401162226.i0GMQ1qN015197>