Re: tun/tap vs splnet()

2017-05-26 Thread YASUOKA Masahiko
On Fri, 26 May 2017 18:05:30 +0200 Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 26/05/17(Fri) 17:43, Alexander Bluhm wrote: >> > @@ -569,8 +554,6 @@ tun_output(struct ifnet *ifp, struct mbu >> >af = mtod(m0, u_int32_t *); >> >*af = htonl(dst->sa_family); >> > >> > - s = splnet(); >> >

Re: tun/tap vs splnet()

2017-05-26 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 06:05:30PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Thanks for your review, it was a bad diff. Updated version below. OK bluhm@ > > Index: net/if_tun.c > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/if_tun.c,v > retrieving

Re: tun/tap vs splnet()

2017-05-26 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 26/05/17(Fri) 17:43, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:06:43PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > @@ -362,7 +355,6 @@ int > > tun_dev_open(struct tun_softc *tp, int flag, int mode, struct proc *p) > > { > > struct ifnet *ifp; > > - int s; > > > > if (tp->tun_flags

Re: tun/tap vs splnet()

2017-05-26 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:06:43PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > @@ -362,7 +355,6 @@ int > tun_dev_open(struct tun_softc *tp, int flag, int mode, struct proc *p) > { > struct ifnet *ifp; > - int s; > > if (tp->tun_flags & TUN_OPEN) > return (EBUSY); I wonder