Hi, On 2016/06/16 12:26, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote: > On 2016/06/16 9:47, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote: >> On 2016/06/14 23:14, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >>> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:33:08 +0900 >>> From: Kengo NAKAHARA <[email protected]> > snip >>> That said, why not not use two flags, say IFEF_OUTPUT_MPSAFE and >>> IFEF_START_MPSAFE? I never much liked the WRAP_FOO device -- is there >>> a particular reason it's better for if_output? >>> >>> It seems to me that it is easier to audit changes for the flag than to >>> audit changes for the wrapper: for the flag, it is only necessary to >>> make sure all callers of ifp->if_start instead use if_start_lock; for >>> WRAP_FOO, it's not as easy to make sure you adjusted everything. But >>> maybe I'm missing something about the motivation for WRAP_FOO here. >> >> Fair enough. I will rewrite my code to use that two flags. > > I rewrite my code. Here is patch series, > http://www.netbsd.org/~knakahara/separate-l3-lock-2/separate-l3-lock-2.tgz > and here is unified patch. > > http://www.netbsd.org/~knakahara/separate-l3-lock-2/unified-separate-l3-lock-2.patch
I update a little above patches (especially 0009-*.patch). Thank you, Michael. :) Thanks, -- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Internet Initiative Japan Inc. Device Engineering Section, IoT Platform Development Department, Network Division, Technology Unit Kengo NAKAHARA <[email protected]>
