> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:55:25PM +0300, dima wrote: > +> I thought about using list also, but considered it to bring > +> too much overhead to the code. The original idea of handling arrays > +> seems to be very elegant. > > Overhead? Did you run any benchmarks to prove it? > I find list-version much more elegant that using an array.
It was an assumption in fact. So, I didn't try to implement a list-based version. We should merge our efforts anyway and both versions should naturally be tested and benchmarked. > > I also don't like the idea of calling handler method with two locks > held (one sx and one mutex)... This gives the highest possible granularity though... > > There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of > using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have > access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields. I guess iface_locks[] should be removed then. We actually can get the interface's internal mutex as ifp->ifq_mtx; I will think about that on weekend. > > -- > Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org > FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! > > ATTACHMENT: application/pgp-signature > _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
