Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:25:56 +0100 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net> To: attilio@FreeBSD.org Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 120788 for review Message-ID: <86myzeq67f.wl%rpaulo@fnop.net> In-Reply-To: <4661BFD0.1080107@FreeBSD.org> References: <200706021756.l52Huq9A049371@repoman.freebsd.org> <4661BFD0.1080107@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:06:56 +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > > Rui Paulo wrote: > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=120788 > > Change 120788 by rpaulo@rpaulo_epsilon on 2007/06/02 17:55:58 > > Add locking. > > Affected files ... > > Ah, but it seems you don't use a "fast" interrupt handler, so you > should not use a spinlock... spinlocks should only be used in fast > interrupt handlers, otherwise you bring up all the disvantages of the > model... Could you please comment on this? 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. Thanks in advance. -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86myzeq67f.wl%rpaulo>