RE: [BUGS] 2.5.69 syncppp

[Paul Fulghum]

> sppp_lcp_open() is called from other places
> without that lock held, so it is probably not
> totally stupid to drop it in the timer handler too.

That section was previously covered by cli/sti,
and I changed it to use the spinlock instead
when cli/sti went away in 2.5.x. 

I thought it was in place to serialize state changes.
I'll look at it harder, you may be right in that
it is not necessary.

> It's good (and surprising) that someone is
> actually using that stuff.

It's not pretty, but it works.
Some customers prefer it to pppd.

> Please beat on it for a while.

Yes, that code is in need of a good beating :-)

Paul Fulghum
[e-mail]