Hello,
> That's a bug, updated diff below.
>
OK I see. the diff looks better then.
> If there's a consensus that this is a way to move forward, it would make
> sense to commit it after unlock.
>
I have not spot anything else. I think this change should go in.
OK sashan@
On 16/04/20(Thu) 11:08, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -356,7 +367,17 @@ taskq_thread(void *xtq)
> > {
> > struct taskq *tq = xtq;
> > struct task work;
> > - int last;
> > + int last, i;
> > +
> > + mtx_enter(>tq_mtx);
> > + for (i = 0; i < tq->tq_nthreads; i++) {
> >
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:57:42AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 14/04/20(Tue) 10:08, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 13/04/20(Mon) 03:20, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > From: "Theo de Raadt"
> > > > > Date:
On 14/04/20(Tue) 10:08, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 13/04/20(Mon) 03:20, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > From: "Theo de Raadt"
> > > > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:28:59 -0600
> > > >
> > > > > + if ((p->p_flag & P_SYSTEM) &&
On 14/04/20(Tue) 10:47, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:08:54AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Thanks for all the inputs, updated diff below.
> >
> > On 13/04/20(Mon) 03:20, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:08:54AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Thanks for all the inputs, updated diff below.
>
> On 13/04/20(Mon) 03:20, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > From: "Theo de Raadt"
> > > > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020
Thanks for all the inputs, updated diff below.
On 13/04/20(Mon) 03:20, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > From: "Theo de Raadt"
> > > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:28:59 -0600
> > >
> > > > + if ((p->p_flag & P_SYSTEM) &&
> > > > +
Hallo,
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: "Theo de Raadt"
> > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:28:59 -0600
> >
> > > + if ((p->p_flag & P_SYSTEM) &&
> > > + (strncmp(p->p_p->ps_comm, "softnet", 7) == 0))
> >
> > Wow that is ugly.
>
> A better
> From: "Theo de Raadt"
> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:28:59 -0600
>
> > + if ((p->p_flag & P_SYSTEM) &&
> > + (strncmp(p->p_p->ps_comm, "softnet", 7) == 0))
>
> Wow that is ugly.
A better approach might be to store a pointer to the softnet task's
struct proc in a global variable
> + if ((p->p_flag & P_SYSTEM) &&
> + (strncmp(p->p_p->ps_comm, "softnet", 7) == 0))
Wow that is ugly.
> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:38:55 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 03:26:14PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > The existing variations of the NET_LOCK() macros are confusing. We're
> > now all aware of this fact. So let's keep them simple to prevent future
> > mistakes
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 03:26:14PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> The existing variations of the NET_LOCK() macros are confusing. We're
> now all aware of this fact. So let's keep them simple to prevent future
> mistakes :)
>
> The diff below reduces the current set of methods to the
> On 12 Apr 2020, at 16:26, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>
> The existing variations of the NET_LOCK() macros are confusing. We're
> now all aware of this fact. So let's keep them simple to prevent future
> mistakes :)
>
> The diff below reduces the current set of methods to the following:
>
>
The existing variations of the NET_LOCK() macros are confusing. We're
now all aware of this fact. So let's keep them simple to prevent future
mistakes :)
The diff below reduces the current set of methods to the following:
NET_LOCK()/NET_UNLOCK()
NET_ASSERT_LOCKED()
14 matches
Mail list logo
