Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 12:24:22 +0200 > > From: Mathieu - <naa...@poolp.org> > > > > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:23:47 +0200 > > > > From: Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> > > > > > > > > As found by tb@ and visa@, `f_mtx' need to block interrupts as long as > > > > it can be taken w/ and w/o the KERNEL_LOCK(). Otherwise a deadlock is > > > > possible if an interrupt tries to grab the KERNEL_LOCK(). > > > > > > > > I'm not switching to a rwlock because code paths are short, I don't > > > > want to introduce new sleeping points and in the long run we should > > > > be using SRPs or atomic operations for reference counts. > > > > > > > > ok? > > > > > > I suppose IPL_VM is the most sensible default for mutexes that need to > > > block all interrupts that might need the kernel lock. > > > > > > ok kettenis@ > > > > > > Hello, > > > > Wouldn't IPL_MPFLOOR be more appropriate? After all mutexes are already > > raising the ipl level to IPL_MPFLOOR (expect for IPL_NONE and above). > > The problem is that IPL_MPFLOOR doesn't exist on all platforms. Maybe > it should...
Ah yeah right, my bad, my grep-foo isn't up to par it seems. Landisk tricked me by using the MI mutex implementation. Mathieu-
