Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:26:02 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: VFS: C99 sparse format for struct vfsops Message-ID: <20030604122602.GC68108@survey.codeburst.net> In-Reply-To: <1054724940.32568.6.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> References: <20030603134717.GD35187@survey.codeburst.net> <20030603.085659.13314075.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030603155157.GH35187@survey.codeburst.net> <20030603.111956.46316212.imp@bsdimp.com> <1054584260.85972.26.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com> <1054724940.32568.6.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:09:00PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 21:04, Paul Richards wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 18:19, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > Notice how thread 1's _m gets set based on the results of the kobj > > > lookup, and we have a race, even if thread1 and thread2 took out their > > > driver instance locks. > > > > That means we have to lock the dispatch table before every method is > > looked up and hold it until the method returns (the alternative would be > > to free it inside the method once it had been called but that'd be a > > right mess). > > Don't even think about trying to put a mutex into the kobj dispatch I wasn't, I was just pointing out what would be necessary if the cacheing problem wasn't resolved :-) -- Tis a wise thing to know what is wanted, wiser still to know when it has been achieved and wisest of all to know when it is unachievable for then striving is folly. [Magician]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030604122602.GC68108>