Hi,
I'm not sure if t_session is supposed to be protected by the proctree
Correct.
lock though. With an initial glance of the code, it would seem odd to be protected by the proctree lock, although I can't see any other locks Someone with more knowledge of this code will probably know the answer to this. There does seem to be a worrying comment above tty_close (which is the only place that t_session seems to be set to NULL): * XXX our caller should have done `spltty(); l_close(); tty_close();' * and l_close() should have flushed, but we repeat the spltty() and * the flush in case there are buggy callers. As I understand it, spltty() is now a no-op. Does this mean that this code is now essentially running without any locks that were used to serialise changes to struct tty in days gone by? Or is the whole tty subsystem still running under Giant?
I thought this too. Maybe Robert knows more. Martin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
