On Dec 12, 2007, at 9:13 PM, Peter Memishian wrote: > One possible solution would be to tweak mac_unicst_update() to > compare the > "new" address and against the address stored in the framework, and > return > immediately if they match. With that change, softmac could also be > simplified to just always call mac_unicst_update() and not bother > tracking > the current MAC address, which would be nice. > > Is this viable? If so, it seems like it would make sense to do > this for > other "update" routines where the requested state matches the current > state known to the framework.
This sounds fine to me. aggr should not be affected by these changes. > On a related note, it seems like some locking is missing from the > update > routines. For instance, mac_unicst_update() currently does a bcopy > () of > the new address into mi_addr without holding any locks. This issue > becomes magnified if we add the proposed checks. (Maybe Thiru has > some > thoughts on this?) Yep, mi_data_lock should do the job as Seb already pointed out. Nicolas.
