Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:51:52 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 120788 for review Message-ID: <200706081351.54281.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4666B730.9080908@FreeBSD.org> References: <200706021756.l52Huq9A049371@repoman.freebsd.org> <86myzeq67f.wl%rpaulo@fnop.net> <4666B730.9080908@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 09:31:28 am Attilio Rao wrote: > Rui Paulo wrote: > > > > If I'm not doing something wrong, I need to use spin locks on my > > interrupt handler, or else witness_checkorder will complain with > > "blockable sleep lock". > > > > Note that I'm using FILTERs. > > So you are doing this in the wrong way. > In order to use correctly filters, please note that the support for them > is compile time choosen, so you need to wrapper all filter specific > parts using INTR_FILTER compat macro. Actually, if you only use a filter and not an ithread handler, you can do that now w/o needing to have any #ifdef INTR_FILTER stuff. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200706081351.54281.jhb>