Re: separate L3 output KERNEL_LOCK

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

Hi,

On 2016/06/16 12:26, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
> 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

I update a little above patches (especially 0009-*.patch).
Thank you, Michael. :)
 

Thanks,

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

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

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