| /freebsd/sys/net/altq/ |
| H A D | altq_subr.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/ofed/drivers/infiniband/core/ |
| H A D | ib_roce_gid_mgmt.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux/ |
| H A D | inetdevice.h | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/dev/wtap/ |
| H A D | if_wtap.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/netinet/netdump/ |
| H A D | netdump_client.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/netpfil/pf/ |
| H A D | pf_if.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/ofed/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ |
| H A D | ipoib_main.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/net/ |
| H A D | bridgestp.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | if_llatbl.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/netinet6/ |
| H A D | scope6.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | in6_mcast.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | in6_var.h | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | mld6.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | in6_ifattach.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | nd6_nbr.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | raw_ip6.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | nd6_rtr.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | icmp6.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| /freebsd/sys/netinet/ |
| H A D | sctp_bsd_addr.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | ip_options.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | igmp.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | in_mcast.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | ip_carp.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | ip_mroute.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|
| H A D | ip_icmp.c | a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
a68cc388 Wed Jan 09 01:11:19 GMT 2019 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Mechanical cleanup of epoch(9) usage in network stack.
- Remove macros that covertly create epoch_tracker on thread stack. Such
macros a quite unsafe, e.g. will produce a buggy code if same macro is
used in embedded scopes. Explicitly declare epoch_tracker always.
- Unmask interface list IFNET_RLOCK_NOSLEEP(), interface address list
IF_ADDR_RLOCK() and interface AF specific data IF_AFDATA_RLOCK() read
locking macros to what they actually are - the net_epoch.
Keeping them as is is very misleading. They all are named FOO_RLOCK(),
while they no longer have lock semantics. Now they allow recursion and
what's more important they now no longer guarantee protection against
their companion WLOCK macros.
Note: INP_HASH_RLOCK() has same problems, but not touched by this commit.
This is non functional mechanical change. The only functionally changed
functions are ni6_addrs() and ni6_store_addrs(), where we no longer enter
epoch recursively.
Discussed with: jtl, gallatin
|