On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> spl is for blocking interrupts. Process-related things shouldn't be and
> >> mostly aren't touched by interrupts.
>
> >But without an spl, couldn't multiple processes do Very Bad Things in a
> >partially shared proc context?
>
> They can do that with or without an spl if they don't lock things properly
> spl can give improper giant locking as a side effect, but it doesn't
> necessarily prevent other processes running, since tsleep() isn't locked
> by spls.
Okay, so we'd need a true mutex, not spl. Do you not agree that there are some
pretty glaring races in code that assumes that vmspace, signals, etc. aren't
shared?
>
> Bruce
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
