Re: Unneeded splnet()/splx() in carp(4)

2017-03-17 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:08:43AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet' > thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state > handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But > nowadays

Re: Unneeded splnet()/splx() in carp(4)

2017-03-17 Thread Mike Belopuhov
On 7 March 2017 at 11:08, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet' > thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state > handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But > nowadays

Re: Unneeded splnet()/splx() in carp(4)

2017-03-17 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 07/03/17(Tue) 11:08, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet' > thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state > handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But > nowadays everything is run

Unneeded splnet()/splx() in carp(4)

2017-03-07 Thread Martin Pieuchot
carp(4), as a pseudo-interface, is always executed in the 'softnet' thread. Using splnet()/splx() might have been relevant when link-state handlers where directly executed from hardware interrupt handlers. But nowadays everything is run under the NET_LOCK() in a thread context, so let's get rid