Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:09:10 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: julian@elischer.org Cc: dinkevich@gmail.com Subject: Re: stack synchronization Message-ID: <20050109.200910.28786915.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <41E1C8C5.4070605@elischer.org> References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050109174427.0802c640@pop3> <20050109.125213.02300240.imp@bsdimp.com> <41E1C8C5.4070605@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <41E1C8C5.4070605@elischer.org>
Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <6.1.2.0.2.20050109174427.0802c640@pop3>
: > Boris Dinkevich <dinkevich@gmail.com> writes:
: > : Hello everyone,
: > :
: > : When going over the usb-host stack, it appears that synchronization is done
: > : via splusb/x.
: > : But in the 5.3 release, these functions are implemented at stubs.
: > :
: > : How is the sync done then ?
: > :
: > : Also, with soft_interrupts, it appears there is no need for spls, am I
: > : correct ?
: >
: > Giant locking.
: >
: > I have patches to move the interrupt outside of giant, but the rest of
: > the stack is still under giant locking.
:
: it may be worth just adding a single "usb system" lock..
well duh! However, there's a lot of things that can trivially be done
with giant. Locking with a usb subsystem lock takes a lot more
effort...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050109.200910.28786915.imp>