Sam Leffler wrote:
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: +> >P> There is still an unresolved problem (in your and our patch as well) of +> >P> using ifnet structure fields without synchronization, as we don't have +> >P> access tointerface's internal mutex, which protects those fields. +> > +> > +> +> you need to add an interface method that has access to it..
I was thinking more about moving interface mutex into ifnet structure, but Robert has some objections IIRC.
I don't know what Robert's objections are but I've considered doing it for a while to deal with some locking issues in net80211-based drivers. The only issue I can see is if this mutex boxes drivers into a locking model that interlocks the rx+tx paths.
We don't want this. This would paint us into a corner with modern high speed hardware that can hanle the rx+tx paths simulaneously. Depending on the hardware DMA model and driver architecture you want to have a different locking model. I agree with Robert in objecting to this.
You did not read what I wrote. The ath driver has separate tx+rx paths and it could benefit from the mutex being in the ifnet structure.
Sam
_______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
