On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 10:50 -0400, Anurag S. Maskey wrote: > > Sebastien Roy wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 10:17 -0400, Anurag S. Maskey wrote: > > > >> I am requesting code review comments for CR 6745288 > >> (http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6745288). > >> Bugster will be updated with status and evaluation comments after the > >> code review. > >> > >> The webrev is at: > >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~anurag_m/onnv-bug-6745288/ > >> > > > > I haven't reviewed this in depth, but I did have one question while > > browsing the overall changes. There are many operations that either > > operate on the door fd (operations on persistent configuration) or > > operate on the dld control fd (operations on temporary configuration). > > Given that such cases exist where one or the other is never used, I > > don't see the value in always opening both in dladm_open(). Why not > > always open the required fd on-demand? > > > A "truss -t open" with dladm shows that in a majority of cases both fd's > are opened (many times) regardless of whether the persistent or > temporary configuration is requested. Thus, I went with opening both > fd's when the handle is opened.
Okay, that's good information. Given that you _always_ try and open the door fd on demand in dladm_door_cal(), then I don't see why you bother to try and open it in dladm_open(). That code can just be removed I think. > In the worst case, if only one of the fd's is required, one extra fd is > opened, which is still better than opening the same fd multiple times as > libdladm currently does. Yes, that much is clear. Thanks, -Seb _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
