Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:24:41 -0800
From:      "Maksim Yevmenkin" <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com>
To:        "Garrett Cooper" <yanefbsd@gmail.com>
Cc:        "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: RFC: small syscons and kbd patch
Message-ID:  <bb4a86c70812040724w43ddec15yab72920d80d879d3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0812040324y3bf0901cy1f4a6d961362c314@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <bb4a86c70812021701i621fdcfjb6a58a7f5cf781d5@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0812040324y3bf0901cy1f4a6d961362c314@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin
> <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Hackers,
>>
>> can someone please review the attached small patch for syscons and
>> kbd? it should be a no-op mostly. the patch basically does
>>
>> 1) removes bogus layering in syscons, i.e. basically removes sccngetch();
>> 2) implements advisory lock for kbd (based on atomic(9));
>> 3) implements new POLLED flag for kbd;
>>
>> this is a part of a plan to fix keyboard access races in syscons.
>>
>> thanks,
>> max
>
> Max,
>     Why are you double and triple negating on this line?
>
> +       return (atomic_cmpset_acq_int(&kbd->kb_locked, !!!on, !!on));

the idea was to ensure that kbd->kb_locked variable only takes values
0 (zero) and 1 (one).

thanks,
max



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bb4a86c70812040724w43ddec15yab72920d80d879d3>