Subject: Re: Removing p_nras from struct proc
To: David Laight <email@example.com>
From: Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>
Date: 11/04/2003 11:03:35
David Laight wrote:
> No - read it carefully. eg for:
Yeah, classic comparison :) It's right, indeed.
> There are (will be) places where proc structure fields need protecting
> against accesses by other processes . So calling the field p_lock
> (because is locks proc structure fields) is better.
Right. Single p_lock would be proper then. Apparently e.g. the RAS
lock guards only specific subset of struct proc (the ras list), but
I guess it'd be safer to have single lock for whole structure.
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org> http://www.NetBSD.cz/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the Buddhist -=-
-=- masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow. Do not let this distract you.'' -=-