On 23/01/17(Mon) 18:45, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -277,19 +277,35 @@ doaccept(struct proc *p, int sock, struc
> > return (error);
> >
> > headfp = fp;
> > + head = headfp->f_data;
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 24/01/17(Tue) 00:51, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:46:42AM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
...
> Updated diff, thanks for your review.
Very close...
> --- kern/uipc_syscalls.c29 Dec 2016
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:48:49AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:01:02AM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Updated diff, thanks for your review.
>
> > @@ -360,24 +358,20 @@ redo:
> > error = soaccept(so, nam);
> > if (!error && name != NULL)
> >
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:01:02AM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Updated diff, thanks for your review.
> @@ -360,24 +358,20 @@ redo:
> error = soaccept(so, nam);
> if (!error && name != NULL)
> error = copyaddrout(p, nam, name, namelen, anamelen);
> -
> + if
On 24/01/17(Tue) 00:51, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:46:42AM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Here's another way to fix the problem, call falloc() before grabbing the
> > NET_LOCK().
> >
> > Comments?
>
> There a two bugs in the "goto redo" block that is not part of the
>
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:46:42AM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Here's another way to fix the problem, call falloc() before grabbing the
> NET_LOCK().
>
> Comments?
There a two bugs in the "goto redo" block that is not part of the
diff. You could do a m_freem(nam), then goto redo, get an
On 20/01/17(Fri) 22:25, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:14:59PM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Index: kern/uipc_syscalls.c
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.144
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:14:59PM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Index: kern/uipc_syscalls.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.144
> diff -u -p -r1.144 uipc_syscalls.c
> ---
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:14:59PM +1000, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Turns out that the NET_LOCK() related hang reported by many is a
> deadlock. One way to prevent it is to ensure that fdplock() is
> always taken before the NET_LOCK() when both have to been hold.
>
> This generates the diff
Turns out that the NET_LOCK() related hang reported by many is a
deadlock. One way to prevent it is to ensure that fdplock() is
always taken before the NET_LOCK() when both have to been hold.
This generates the diff below.
Comments, ok?
Index: kern/uipc_socket.c
10 matches
Mail list logo