cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 in6_src.c

John Baldwin jhb at
Wed Aug 17 17:56:36 GMT 2005

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 01:46 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:18:25 -0400
> >>>>> John Baldwin <jhb at> said:
> jhb> Thanks.  I see that you still kept the mutex and and properly lock
> both the sx jhb> and mutex when making updates, so it seems it is on
> purpose.  The one place jhb> that doesn't use the sx lock is
> lookup_addrsel_policy() which is called from jhb> in6_selectsrc().  I guess
> it is not ok to sleep in that function and that is jhb> why you don't use
> the sx lock in that one place?
> Because, lookup_addrsel_policy() is protected by mutex lock.
> add_addrsel_policyent() and delete_addrsel_policyent() do update the
> tailq.  Both of the two functions are also protected by mutex.  So, I
> tought that lookup_addrsel_policy() doesn't need sx lock.
> I tried to stop using of mutex locks and used only sx locks, as learn
> by mistake.  It ended up with exclusive lock error between INP_LOCK.
> So, I avoided to use sx lock in lookup_addrsel_policy().
> Am I something wrong?

Ah, if you had a witness warning from INP_LOCK because INP_LOCK is held when 
in6_selectsrc() is called then you did the right thing and that answers my 
question.  Thanks.

John Baldwin <jhb at>  <><
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =

More information about the cvs-src mailing list