On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 10:00:51AM +0330, mokhi wrote:
> @imp:
> i exactly mean (Okay not so exact but very near ;D) what you said.
> after analyzing kbd.c functions (eg, kbd_realloc_array()) i concluded
> there are race conditions (and at result in some places there are
> un-protected data too)
So in your opinion I shouldn't put mutex/spin/lock/unlock under splitty/splx?
Can you please explain a bit more about MPSAFE using for me too?
Regards, Mokhi.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
On 01/30/16 19:31, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 09:25:21PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 09:42:13PM +0330, mokhi wrote:
i currently only wanna do patch on kbd.c (because i'm sure there is a
thread-unsafety)
and i don't want to add anything to
On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 18:56 +0330, mokhi wrote:
> Hi.
> in kbd.c there are many places spltty()/splx() used assuming it
> locks/unlocks.
> though there is bug filed for this, and ive asked in #bsddev, Ive
> preferred to ask and ensure it from here again.
> As these functions are obsoleted now,
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-30 at 18:56 +0330, mokhi wrote:
> > Hi.
> > in kbd.c there are many places spltty()/splx() used assuming it
> > locks/unlocks.
> > though there is bug filed for this, and ive asked in #bsddev, Ive
> >
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 09:42:13PM +0330, mokhi wrote:
> i currently only wanna do patch on kbd.c (because i'm sure there is a
> thread-unsafety)
> and i don't want to add anything to spltty() nor splx(), i just wanna
> add things under where they've been used.
> isn't problem with using
Hi.
in kbd.c there are many places spltty()/splx() used assuming it locks/unlocks.
though there is bug filed for this, and ive asked in #bsddev, Ive
preferred to ask and ensure it from here again.
As these functions are obsoleted now, this assumption is incorrect and
some places we have
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 06:56:00PM +0330, mokhi wrote:
> Hi.
> in kbd.c there are many places spltty()/splx() used assuming it locks/unlocks.
> though there is bug filed for this, and ive asked in #bsddev, Ive
> preferred to ask and ensure it from here again.
> As these functions are obsoleted
i currently only wanna do patch on kbd.c (because i'm sure there is a
thread-unsafety)
and i don't want to add anything to spltty() nor splx(), i just wanna
add things under where they've been used.
isn't problem with using mutex/spin/lock/unlock etc there?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 09:25:21PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 09:42:13PM +0330, mokhi wrote:
>
> > i currently only wanna do patch on kbd.c (because i'm sure there is a
> > thread-unsafety)
> > and i don't want to add anything to spltty() nor splx(), i just wanna
@imp So you think I should start to put locks there and see what happens? :)
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
@imp:
i exactly mean (Okay not so exact but very near ;D) what you said.
after analyzing kbd.c functions (eg, kbd_realloc_array()) i concluded
there are race conditions (and at result in some places there are
un-protected data too)
i don't mean to blindly replace splXXX() with locks, but the
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 9:37 PM, mokhi wrote:
>
> @imp So you think I should start to put locks there and see what happens? :)
I’d advocate a deeper understanding of the code. splXXX() is for code path
exclusion. Locks are for data protection. These are subtly different
13 matches
Mail list logo