Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:34:46 -0800 From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How is supposed to be protected the units list? Message-ID: <4B8D3016.2070301@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11003020724m14bebf74y9fa3906418b7cf11@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe11002281655i61a5f0a0if3f381ad0c4a1ef8@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe11003020724m14bebf74y9fa3906418b7cf11@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I will admit to not looking at this stuff closely. But I'll also test with this today and give back an opinion. I would really like to hear Scott, Ken, Alexander or Justin express an opinion on this. > 2010/3/1 Attilio Rao<attilio@freebsd.org>: > >> Hello, >> I have a question that I've been unable to reply reading the code. >> Someone could point me to documentation explaining how the unit tailq >> (within a struct periph_driver) is supposed to be locked? >> I'm not sure how it is assured consistency of accesses to the list and >> more important how is ensured that the periphs composing it doesn't go >> away as I don't see any reference bump for objects inserted there. >> > I don't think the lists are protected at all so I made this simple > patch taking advantage by a global lock: > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/Sandvine/pdrv/pdrv_lock.diff > > The patch is simple enough but I just test-compiled it (will need some > time to run in a debugging kernel, hope to do tonight) and maybe you > can already give your opinions here. > > Thanks, > Attilio > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B8D3016.2070301>