:
:
: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/
Huh? It doesn't look like the same algorithm to me.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
