Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:11:44 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: Matthew Fleming <mdf356@gmail.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Weongyo Jeong <weongyo.jeong@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Outline of USB process integration in the kernel taskqueue system Message-ID: <201011042011.44705.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin3Zp82KDJiunS1A1Wf3bSeWGFxh8wTc4Gu6551@mail.gmail.com> References: <201011012054.59551.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011041941.09662.hselasky@c2i.net> <AANLkTin3Zp82KDJiunS1A1Wf3bSeWGFxh8wTc4Gu6551@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> wrote: > > On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote: > >> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch) > > > > Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work > > and re-base my patch. > > It's on svn.freebsd.org: > > http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/projects/ofed/head/sys/kern/subr_taskque > ue.c?view=log > http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&revision=209422 > > For the purpose of speed, I'm not opposed to breaking the KBI by using > a doubly-linked TAILQ, but I don't think the difference will matter > all that often (perhaps I'm wrong and some taskqueues have dozens of > pending tasks?) > > Thanks, > matthew At first look I see that I need a non-blocking version of: taskqueue_cancel( At the point in the code where these functions are called I cannot block. Is this impossible to implement? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201011042011.44705.hselasky>