[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       netbsd-tech-kern
Subject:    Re: wm_intr may lead wm_start unexpectedly
From:       Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r () NetBSD ! org>
Date:       2014-06-30 4:17:22
Message-ID: CAKrYomgAMkC23zRPto5GHj6szyDtbm4p+Wy+0+SAk8Aua+cwyw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r@netbsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 06:51:06PM +0900, Ryota Ozaki wrote:
>>> >> Any comments?
>>> >
>>> > why not change in6_if_link_up() to use a delay >= 1 instead of 0 ?
>>>
>>> My change intends to make it clear whether a callout will be used
>>> or not. I think it's error-prone.
>>
>> for me, it's clear that a timeout of 0 means immediately, and so a
>> callout is not needed. I wouldn't expect a timeout of 0 to run through
>> a callout. I would also expect a negative timeout to either be EINVAL or
>> equivalent to 0.
>
> Hmm, we have different feelings :-|
>
> Anyway I don't so stick to my approach. I just want to fix the problem
> and avoid further abuse of the function somehow.
>
> So changing delay >= 1 and adding some caveat about its behavior
> to nd6_dad_start would be okay.

So the patch is here: http://netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/nd6_dad_start.diff

Regards,
  ozaki-r

>
>   ozaki-r
>
>>
>> --
>> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
>>      NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
>> --
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]