Peter Memishian wrote: > > I'm pretty sure holding a lock across putnext can be considered a bug > > in a DLPI driver so, if other drivers do have this flaw, the are > > generally asking for trouble. > > They are generally asking for trouble, but I recall drivers that do this > under the assumption that it won't be an issue as long as they ensure that > the lock in question will never be acquired by the same thread on reentry. > For instance, they might hold foo_lock across putnext() on the read side, > but then ensure that foo_lock is only held in srv(9E) context on the write > side. The current GLDv3 locking design makes that assumption insufficient. >
Ok. Good point. Still a big flaw and it's not going to be good for performance so I'd hope that drivers for today's most popular devices would not do such a thing. In fact I'm surprised that ce does it since I thought it had gone through multiple performance tune-ups. Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdurrant.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 161 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/clearview-discuss/attachments/20080218/585fa499/attachment.vcf>
