Re: separate L3 output KERNEL_LOCK

[Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>]

Hi,

On 2016/06/16 9:47, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
> On 2016/06/14 23:14, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>>    Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:33:08 +0900
>>    From: Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>
snip
>> That said, why not not use two flags, say IFEF_OUTPUT_MPSAFE and
>> IFEF_START_MPSAFE?  I never much liked the WRAP_FOO device -- is there
>> a particular reason it's better for if_output?
>>
>> It seems to me that it is easier to audit changes for the flag than to
>> audit changes for the wrapper: for the flag, it is only necessary to
>> make sure all callers of ifp->if_start instead use if_start_lock; for
>> WRAP_FOO, it's not as easy to make sure you adjusted everything.  But
>> maybe I'm missing something about the motivation for WRAP_FOO here.
> 
> Fair enough. I will rewrite my code to use that two flags.

I rewrite my code. Here is patch series,
    http://www.netbsd.org/~knakahara/separate-l3-lock-2/separate-l3-lock-2.tgz
and here is unified patch.
    http://www.netbsd.org/~knakahara/separate-l3-lock-2/unified-separate-l3-lock-2.patch

Could you comment this patch?


Thanks,

-- 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Internet Initiative Japan Inc.

Device Engineering Section,
IoT Platform Development Department,
Network Division,
Technology Unit

Kengo NAKAHARA <k-nakahara%iij.ad.jp@localhost>