Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:32:37 -0800 From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, sam@freebsd.org Cc: perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 41566 for review Message-ID: <200311061032.37691.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <20031106.012601.39876884.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200311060513.hA65Da5J091575@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031106.012601.39876884.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 06 November 2003 12:26 am, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200311060513.hA65Da5J091575@repoman.freebsd.org> > > Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org> writes: > : diff reduction against head > : - SIS_UNLOCK(sc); > : (*ifp->if_input)(ifp, m); > : - SIS_LOCK(sc); > > does this mean that we can call if_input with our locks held? sis's lock is setup MTX_RECURSE in which case re-entry is handled. You only need to release the lock when you may be re-entered and it's not setup as recursive. I think recursive locks are bad but so long as the driver is setup to use them I'm not releasing them when calling up. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311061032.37691.sam>