On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:32:07PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 15/05/17(Mon) 13:35, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > Here's the last of the splsoftnet(), is it ok if I replace it with a
> > > KERNEL_LOCK() to make it clear
On 15/05/17(Mon) 13:35, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Here's the last of the splsoftnet(), is it ok if I replace it with a
> > KERNEL_LOCK() to make it clear this needs protection?
>
> I think it needs the socket lock. somove() is
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Here's the last of the splsoftnet(), is it ok if I replace it with a
> KERNEL_LOCK() to make it clear this needs protection?
I think it needs the socket lock. somove() is modifying the
so_splicelen value. somove() calls
Here's the last of the splsoftnet(), is it ok if I replace it with a
KERNEL_LOCK() to make it clear this needs protection?
Index: kern/uipc_socket.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_socket.c,v
retrieving revision 1.182
diff -u -p
