On 12-Aug-2003 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 03:50:26PM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote: >>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, John Baldwin wrote: >>> Also, SK_LOCK != SK_IF_LOCK, or is that a typo? If it is a typo, >>> then the lock order should still be fixed in some fashion. >> >>They are the same. SK_IF_LOCK is called on the sk_if_softc, but just >>locks the shared sk_softc mutex. Does that make sense? >> >>#define SK_LOCK(_sc) mtx_lock(&(_sc)->sk_mtx) >>#define SK_IF_LOCK(_sc) mtx_lock(&(_sc)->sk_softc->sk_mtx) > > This strikes me as a particularly poor selection of macros. They > look like they are different locks and I'm sure John won't be the > only person who gets caught believing they really are different. > > Getting locking right is difficult enough without having the same lock > called different things in different places. This is an area where > C++ would be cleaner - you have two (inline) functions with the same > name and the compiler picks the appropriate one based on the argument > type. Failing that, I think the code would be cleaner without the > macros or with SK_IF_LOCK() references replaced by SK_LOCK().
Definitely agreed. That is gross. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
