On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:45:09 +0900 Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > That would be supposed to fix the LOR message. But I'd like to keep > lock ordering between snd_mutex and sndstat_lock. Since sndstat_read() > could be called at any time there is an implicit lock order. > I think switching to sx lock from mutex in sndstat code was to allow > uiomove with lock held. IMO, it would be even better to rewrite > sndstat_read() without using uiomove such that it can also use > standard mutex rather than sx lock. > I tend to agree with you. Since that sndstat_busy() isn't enough, how about we acquire the entire sndstat so nobody can monkey with it (as the proposed / attached diff) and at the same time avoiding this LOR message. It seems much better rather than locking sndstat after sndstat_busy() and much of pcm_unregister() procedures, only to find out that somebody acquire it within that moment. -- Ariff Abdullah MyBSD http://www.MyBSD.org.my (IPv6/IPv4) http://staff.MyBSD.org.my (IPv6/IPv4) http://tomoyo.MyBSD.org.my (IPv6/IPv4)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:43 UTC