On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:42:19AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Updated diff that fixes some issues reported by visa@:
>
> - prevents relocking the netlock in the 'restart' case.
> - always call solock() after sbunlock() in sosplice().
>
> Alexander is there an easy way to trigger the 'res
On 26/06/17(Mon) 16:15, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> I'd like to enforce the following "lock" ordering: always hold the
> socket lock when calling sblock().
>
> This would allow me to protect `so_state' in sosend() when setting the
> SS_ISSENDING bit.
>
> Diff below implements that. It also gets rid
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:15:50PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> I'd like to enforce the following "lock" ordering: always hold the
> socket lock when calling sblock().
I was already wondering wether the "panic: receive 1" seen by stsp@
may be caused by an additional sleeping point in soreceive(
I'd like to enforce the following "lock" ordering: always hold the
socket lock when calling sblock().
This would allow me to protect `so_state' in sosend() when setting the
SS_ISSENDING bit.
Diff below implements that. It also gets rid of sbsleep() and uses
sosleep() instead.
ok?
Index: sys/so
