On 22-May-01 Matt Dillon wrote:
>:Ok, then why not let the current shmexit() stay in exit1() as a hack to help
>:free memory, but add in a check in vmspace_free() as well to catch any race
>:conditions that may fall through the cracks? As long as we clear the shm
>:pointer in struct vmspace when we free it then we won't be double free'ing,
>:and
>:will always free it eventually. That is also a much simpler change. :)
>:Additionally, adding to the comment in exit1() clarifying that this is an
>:attempt to free resources as soon as possible and that the race condition is
>:known and that vmspace_free() is a catch-all might be nice as well.
>:
>:--
>:
>:John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
>:PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
>
> It's not really good programming practice. Someone might trip over
> it later on.
Then the vmspace free()ing is also bad programming practice? It's the same
exact algorithm used for the vmspace.
> -Matt
--
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
